CVE-2026-2629 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-2629
Vulnerability Scoring

7.3
/10
Very High Risk

Highly exploitable, CVE-2026-2629 poses a critical security risk that could lead to severe breaches.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: Low
    Exploits can be performed without significant complexity or special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Network
    Vulnerability is exploitable over a network without physical access.
  • Privileges Required: None
    No privileges are required for exploitation.
  • Scope: Unchanged
    Exploit remains within the originally vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2026-2629 Details

Status: Received on 17 Feb 2026, 22:18 UTC

Published on: 17 Feb 2026, 22:18 UTC

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

cna@vuldb.com

CVSS3 Type

Primary

CVSS3 Vector

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

CVE-2026-2629 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-2629: A 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.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-2629

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-2629 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2026-2629

With low attack complexity and no required privileges, CVE-2026-2629 is an easy target for cybercriminals. Organizations should prioritize immediate mitigation measures to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-2629, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-2629, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: Low
    CVE-2026-2629 could lead to minor leaks of non-critical information without major privacy breaches.
  • Integrity: Low
    Exploiting CVE-2026-2629 may cause minor changes to data without severely impacting its accuracy.
  • Availability: Low
    CVE-2026-2629 may slightly degrade system performance without fully affecting service availability.

CVE-2026-2629 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-78

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Command Line Execution through SQL Injection CAPEC-108 An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
  • Command Delimiters CAPEC-15 An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
  • Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers CAPEC-43 An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
  • Argument Injection CAPEC-6 An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
  • OS Command Injection CAPEC-88 In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-2629: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2026-26119 – Improper authentication in Windows Admin Center allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
  • CVE-2026-1670 – The affected products are vulnerable to an unauthenticated API endpoint exposure, which may allow an attacker to remotely change the "forgot passwo...
  • CVE-2025-62183 – Pega Platform versions 8.1.0 through 25.1.1 are affected by a Stored Cross-site Scripting vulnerability in a user interface component. Requires an...
  • CVE-2025-13689 – IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data could allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary commands and gain access to sensitive information due to...
  • CVE-2025-13333 – IBM WebSphere Application Server 9.0, and 8.5 could provide weaker than expected security during system administration of security settings.