Skip to content
Noroxi
CVE-2026-102422· CVE.org (no NVD analysis yet)· CNA harborist

shell-quote `quote()` command injection via a line terminator in a token after a `{ comment }` token

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 36/100)

  • Public proof-of-concept code exists (GitHub); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
  • Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.38% (FIRST EPSS).
  • Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
  • Fixed version: www.npmjs.com/package/shell-quote shell-quote 1.11.0.

Low priority for now. Upgrade to www.npmjs.com/package/shell-quote shell-quote 1.11.0 or later.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

shell-quote's `quote()` function emits a `{ comment }` token as `#` followed by its text, which comments out the rest of the shell line, including the opening quote of any later string token. A line terminator (\n, \r, U+2028, U+2029) in that later string therefore ends the comment, and the rest of the string is parsed as shell input: `quote(['echo', 'ok', { comment: 'x' }, 'a\nid;#'])` runs `id` in sh, bash, dash, ksh and zsh. `parse()` emits a comment token for a `#` in the middle of a word (for example `http://example.com/#frag`), so callers that combine `parse()` output with another untrusted string, such as `quote(parse(untrustedCommand).concat(untrustedArg))`, are affected. The fix for CVE-2026-9277 rejected line terminators in the comment's own text, but not in the tokens after it. Fixed in 1.11.0: `quote()` throws a `TypeError` when a string after a `{ comment }` token contains a line terminator.

CriticalCVSS 9.2 · v4.0—Proof of concept Fix available
Published
Sep 29, 2026
Updated
Sep 30, 2026
EPSS
0.3% · 31th percentile

Report tools

JSON

Action score

36

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS
36 / 40 · 9.2 / 10
CISA KEV
0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS
0 / 30 · 0.3%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation
none
Automatable
no
Technical impact
total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD
—
CNA · harborist
8.1
NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

  • Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
  • Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
  • A fix has been released

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Follow CVE-2026-102422

When you'll hear from us

  • when it enters CISA KEV
  • when exploit code appears or is weaponized
  • when the record is updated (including a fixed version)
  • when EPSS rises 20 points in a week

One daily email digest (06:00 UTC); connect a webhook for KEV listings and weaponized exploits instantly.

Your free account also gets you

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

  • Stack alerts: add the products and versions you run, get the new CVEs that affect them
  • Uptime monitoring: 1 site, instant email when it goes down
  • Add your domain: subdomains and takeover risk scanned every week (1 domain)
  • 10 scans an hour on the security tools (3 a day without an account), an API key and MCP
  • All your scans in one panel: findings, what changed in the last scan, a report per domain or per client (PDF, share link)
All free tools

Sign up with email · Have an account? Sign in

Free account, no card. Unfollow any time.

Don't want an account? Get "Exploited this week" by email every Monday

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

—

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (harborist). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

  • www.npmjs.com/package/shell-quote shell-quote

    • 1.8.4 and later · before 1.11.0affected · semver

Package-level exposure

OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.

EcosystemPackageAffected rangeFix
Debian:12node-shell-quotefrom 0—
Debian:13node-shell-quotebefore 1.7.4+~1.7.1-1+deb13u21.7.4+~1.7.1-1+deb13u2
Debian:14node-shell-quotebefore 1.12.0-11.12.0-1
npmshell-quotefrom 1.8.4 · before 1.11.01.11.0
Red Hat:hummingbird:1grafana13.1before 0:13.1.6-0.4.hum10:13.1.6-0.4.hum1
Red Hat:hummingbird:1grafana13.2before 0:13.2.1-0.8.hum10:13.2.1-0.8.hum1
Red Hat:hummingbird:1jaegerbefore 0:2.20.0-0.11.hum10:2.20.0-0.11.hum1
Red Hat:hummingbird:1prometheus3.13before 0:3.13.3-0.2.hum10:3.13.3-0.2.hum1

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

Product / packageFixed versionSource
www.npmjs.com/package/shell-quote shell-quote1.11.0Vendor (CNA)
debian:node-shell-quote1.12.0-1 · Debian:14Package registry (OSV)
debian:node-shell-quote1.7.4+~1.7.1-1+deb13u2 · Debian:13Package registry (OSV)
npm:shell-quote1.11.0Package registry (OSV)
red hat:grafana13.10:13.1.6-0.4.hum1 · Red Hat:hummingbird:1Package registry (OSV)
red hat:grafana13.20:13.2.1-0.8.hum1 · Red Hat:hummingbird:1Package registry (OSV)
red hat:jaeger0:2.20.0-0.11.hum1 · Red Hat:hummingbird:1Package registry (OSV)
red hat:prometheus3.130:3.13.3-0.2.hum1 · Red Hat:hummingbird:1Package registry (OSV)

Exploit status

Proof of concept available

A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.

Evidence

  • Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub ×1

Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.

Public exploit evidence
SourceKindDate
Proof-of-concept repository on GitHubstars:02026-10-07

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

  1. Published
  2. Fix recordedsame day
  3. First PoC+8 d
  4. TodayOct 22, 2026+24 d
EPSS, last 120 days

FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

Credits

All researchers

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

No nightly-computed relations.

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

—

Bug bounty scope

No known public program.

Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).

Technical details

Attack conditions

  • Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
  • No account or password is required.
  • No user action is required.
  • No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability
Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
X

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-78 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

CVSS vector

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

nvd-secondary

Root cause

User input is inserted as text into a shell command. The shell may interpret special characters in the input as part of the command.

The bug in code

The whole CWE-78 class

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

ts
const host = req.body.host;exec("ping -c 1 " + host, onResult);

Fixed

ts
const host = req.body.host;if (!/^[a-z0-9.-]{1,253}$/i.test(host)) return res.sendStatus(400);execFile("ping", ["-c", "1", host], onResult);

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

ATT&CK techniques

—

Change log

  1. Exploit maturitynone → poc
  2. SSVC exploitation— → none
  3. CVSS8.1 → 9.2
  4. Severityhigh → critical
  5. Exploit maturity— → none
  6. Fix✗ → ✓

For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →

References

Show all references (3 more)

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records