CVE-2026-26831
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 · uneditedtextract through 2.5.0 is vulnerable to OS Command Injection via the file path parameter in multiple extractors. When processing files with malicious filenames, the filePath is passed directly to child_process.exec() in lib/extractors/doc.js, rtf.js, dxf.js, images.js, and lib/util.js with inadequate sanitization
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 confidenceThe textract library through version 2.5.0 is vulnerable to OS command injection because the filePath parameter is passed directly to child_process.exec() without sanitization in multiple extractor files (doc.js, rtf.js, dxf.js, images.js, and util.js). An attacker can exploit this by providing malicious filenames containing shell metacharacters.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 2.5.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check textract versionRun 'npm list textract' or check package.json to see the installed version of the textract packageAffected if The installed version is 2.5.0 or lower
-
Identify if textract processes external filenamesReview application code that calls textract.extract() and trace where the filePath argument originatesAffected if filePath values come from user input or untrusted sources
-
Verify affected extractor modules are in useCheck if the application uses textract to extract from .doc, .rtf, .dxf, or image files - examine node_modules/textract/[doc|rtf|dxf|images].js filesAffected if The application processes any of these file types through textract
-
Confirm exec() usage with file pathsInspect the source code of the extractor files in node_modules/textract/ - look for child_process.exec() calls that concatenate or interpolate the filePath parameterAffected if The code uses exec() with unsanitized filePath instead of execFile() or proper escaping
A user is affected if they have textract version 2.5.0 or lower and process untrusted filenames through its extractors for .doc, .rtf, .dxf, or image files.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of textract if available; otherwise, implement proper input validation and sanitization on file paths before passing them to child_process.exec(), such as using execFile() instead of exec() or validating that filenames contain only safe characters.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-26831 — 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-2026-26831 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