CVE-2026-10280
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 security flaw has been discovered in horizon921 mcpilot 0.1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file client/src/app/api/mcp/call/route.ts of the component MCP API Call Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument serverBaseUrl results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. 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 · moderate confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the mcpilot application's MCP API Call Endpoint (client/src/app/api/mcp/call/route.ts). The serverBaseUrl parameter is not validated, allowing an attacker to control which URLs the server will request, potentially enabling access to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, and internal infrastructure.
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.
-
Identify if mcpilot is installedSearch for mcpilot in your project dependencies by checking package.json files, node_modules, or container images for the 'mcpilot' packageAffected if mcpilot package version 0.1.0 is present in dependencies
-
Locate the vulnerable API endpointSearch for the file client/src/app/api/mcp/call/route.ts in your codebaseAffected if The file exists and contains code that accepts a serverBaseUrl parameter for HTTP requests
-
Check the version of mcpilotRun npm list mcpilot or check package-lock.json for the installed mcpilot versionAffected if Version is exactly 0.1.0 or falls within the 0.1.x range
-
Inspect serverBaseUrl parameter handlingExamine the route.ts file to see if serverBaseUrl is used in fetch/axios calls without validation, allowlist, or IP range blockingAffected if The code makes outbound HTTP requests using user-provided serverBaseUrl without strict allowlist validation or internal IP/metadata endpoint blocking
-
Test if the endpoint accepts arbitrary URLsSend a request to the /api/mcp/call endpoint with a serverBaseUrl pointing to an internal resource (e.g., http://localhost or cloud metadata IP)Affected if The server successfully makes requests to arbitrary URLs provided in the serverBaseUrl parameter
You are affected if mcpilot version 0.1.0 is installed and the /api/mcp/call endpoint accepts user-controlled serverBaseUrl values without strict allowlist or internal IP blocking validation.
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 allowlist-based filtering on the serverBaseUrl parameter to restrict requests to trusted domains only, combined with network segmentation to limit the impact of SSRF attacks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10280 — 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-2026-10280 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