CVE-2026-2629
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA weakness has been identified in jishi node-sonos-http-api up to 3776f0ee2261c924c7b7204de121a38100a08ca7. Affected is the function Promise of the file lib/tts-providers/mac-os.js of the component TTS Provider. This manipulation of the argument phrase causes os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. This product is using a rolling release to provide continious delivery. Therefore, no version details for affected nor updated releases are available. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in the TTS (Text-to-Speech) Provider of node-sonos-http-api. The phrase argument passed to the function in lib/tts-providers/mac-os.js is not sanitized before being used in OS command execution, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary shell commands.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the node-sonos-http-api installationFind the lib/tts-providers/mac-os.js file in your environment - typically in the project root or node_modules if installed as a dependencyAffected if The file exists and the TTS provider is in use
-
Identify the TTS provider configurationCheck your node-sonos-http-api configuration for which TTS provider is selected - look for settings that specify 'mac-os', 'MacOS', or the mac-os.js providerAffected if The mac-os TTS provider is enabled in the configuration
-
Inspect the vulnerable code in mac-os.jsOpen lib/tts-providers/mac-js.js and search for exec(), spawn(), or similar shell execution functions that use the 'phrase' parameter without sanitization (e.g., no input validation, no shell metacharacter escaping)Affected if The phrase parameter is passed directly to a shell execution function without sanitization
-
Check for external input exposureReview how the TTS function is invoked - determine if the phrase parameter can be controlled by external users or HTTP request parametersAffected if External users can supply the phrase value that reaches the mac-os TTS function
-
Verify command execution occursConfirm that the mac-os.js file actually executes OS commands - look for uses of child_process.exec(), child_process.execSync(), or shell command constructionAffected if OS command execution is performed using the phrase input without protection
You are affected if the mac-os.js TTS provider is enabled and the phrase parameter flows to shell execution without sanitization.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation and sanitization on the phrase parameter to prevent shell metacharacter injection. Alternatively, refactor to use parameterized command execution or a safe API that does not invoke shell interpretation.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-2629 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-2629 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data