Skip to content

shell-quote quote() does not escape newlines in object .op values

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 22, 2026 in ljharb/shell-quote • Updated Jun 9, 2026

Package

npm shell-quote (npm)

Affected versions

>= 1.1.0, <= 1.8.3

Patched versions

1.8.4

Description

Summary

shell-quote's quote() function did not validate object-token inputs against the operator model used by parse(). The .op field was backslash-escaped character by character using /(.)/g, which in JavaScript does not match line terminators (\n, \r, U+2028, U+2029). A line terminator in .op therefore passed through unescaped into the output; POSIX shells treat a literal \n as a command separator, so any content after it would execute as a second command.

The vulnerable code path is reachable in two ways. Neither requires the parser to misbehave — parse() only emits ops from a fixed control set — but both are documented API surface:

  1. Direct construction. A caller builds { op: '...\n...' } from external input (e.g. a deserialized argument array) and passes it to quote().
  2. envFn return. parse(cmd, envFn) is documented to splice the return value of envFn into the result array when it is an object. An attacker-influenced data source consulted by envFn can introduce an object token whose .op reaches quote().

Impact

Shell command injection in callers that pass object tokens with attacker-influenced .op values to quote() and then hand the result to a shell. The preconditions are narrower than ordinary string injection — they require the caller to feed object tokens into quote() — but object tokens are a public, documented part of the API surface, and quote() is intended to be a shell-safety boundary.

PoC

const { parse, quote } = require('shell-quote');

// Direct construction
quote([{ op: ';\nid' }]);
// → "\;\n\\i\\d"  ← literal newline; second line executes as a command

// Via parse() with an envFn returning attacker-shaped objects
const tokens = parse('echo $X', () => ({ op: ';\nid' }));
require('child_process').execSync(quote(tokens), { shell: true });
// Executes `id` after `echo \;`.

Confirmed under sh, bash, dash, and zsh.

Patch

Fixed by replacing the per-character escape with strict shape validation in quote(). The object-token branch now:

  • { op } — .op must be a string from the same allowlist the parser emits (||, &&, ;;, |&, <(, <<<, >>, >&, <&, &, ;, (, ), |, <, >). Anything else throws TypeError. This is the direct fix for the reported issue and removes the entire class of .op injection.
  • { op: 'glob', pattern } — .pattern must be a string with no line terminators. Glob metacharacters (*, ?, [, ], {, }, ,) pass through; all other shell-special characters are backslash-escaped. (Previously the pattern field was discarded entirely and the literal string \g\l\o\b was emitted — a latent bug, not security-relevant.)
  • { comment } — .comment must be a string with no line terminators (line terminators would end the shell comment and resume command parsing — same injection shape).
  • Any other object shape — TypeError.

The fix is allowlist-based rather than a targeted regex tweak, so it closes the reported vector and forecloses adjacent ones (U+2028 / U+2029 line separators in .op, line terminators in comments, unknown-shape objects coerced through .replace).

Workarounds

Prior to upgrading, callers that build object tokens from untrusted input should validate .op against the parser's operator set themselves, and never construct { op } from attacker-controlled strings.

Credits

Reported by Akshat Sinha

References

@ljharb ljharb published to ljharb/shell-quote May 22, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 22, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 9, 2026
Reviewed Jun 9, 2026
Last updated Jun 9, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
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

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(21st percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-9277

GHSA ID

GHSA-w7jw-789q-3m8p

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.
⚡