dbcve.org
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)Weakness · CWE-918

CVE-2026-15750

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-14
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
70/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges 5 weeks old

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 · unedited
A weakness has been identified in mastergo-design mastergo-magic-mcp up to 0.2.0. Impacted is the function z.string of the file src/tools/get-component-link.ts of the component mcp__getComponentLink. Executing a manipulation of the argument url can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could 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 · high confidence

Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in mastergo-magic-mcp MCP tool. The z.string validation in the get-component-link.ts file fails to properly restrict the url parameter, allowing an attacker to manipulate the argument to cause the server to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or external resources.

MitigationImplement strict URL validation with an allowlist of permitted domains/IPs, disable the function until a patch is available, or add network segmentation to prevent the affected server from making arbitrary outbound connections.

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
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if mastergo-magic-mcp is installed
    Search for the mastergo-magic-mcp package in your node_modules, Python environment, or system-wide installation directory. On npm-based systems, run: npm list -g mastergo-magic-mcp or check your package.json for the dependency.
    Affected if The package is present in your environment
  2. Determine the installed version of mastergo-magic-mcp
    Run a version check command appropriate to your installation method. For npm: npm list mastergo-magic-mcp. For pip: pip show mastergo-magic-mcp. Compare the reported version to any known affected version ranges.
    Affected if The installed version falls within an affected version range (if such ranges become known)
  3. Locate the get-component-link.ts file
    Search for the file named get-component-link.ts within the mastergo-magic-mcp installation directory or source code repository. Common paths include: node_modules/mastergo-magic-mcp/src/ or the project root if running from source.
    Affected if The file exists in the installation
  4. Inspect the z.string validation for the url parameter
    Open get-component-link.ts and examine how the url parameter is validated. Look for z.string() usage and check if there is any allowlist, regex pattern, or domain restriction applied to the url input before it is used in HTTP requests.
    Affected if The z.string validation lacks strict URL restriction (no allowlist, no domain/IP filtering, no validation against internal addresses)
  5. Check if the MCP tool is exposed to untrusted input
    Determine whether the get-component-link function or the MCP tool API endpoint is accessible to users, external services, or untrusted code. Review your server configuration, API gateway settings, or authentication controls around the MCP tool.
    Affected if The tool accepts url parameters from untrusted or external sources without sanitization
  6. Verify network accessibility from the MCP tool
    Review outbound network rules, firewall policies, or container networking to determine if the server running mastergo-magic-mcp can make outbound HTTP/HTTPS connections to arbitrary IPs or internal resources.
    Affected if The server can initiate outbound connections and the tool lacks URL validation

You are likely affected if mastergo-magic-mcp is installed and the get-component-link.ts file uses z.string validation on a url parameter without strict allowlist or input restrictions, especially if the tool accepts untrusted URL inputs.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict URL validation with an allowlist of permitted domains/IPs, disable the function until a patch is available, or add network segmentation to prevent the affected server from making arbitrary outbound connections.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15750 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-15750 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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