CVE-2026-1977
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 vulnerability has been detected in isaacwasserman mcp-vegalite-server up to 16aefed598b8cd897b78e99b907f6e2984572c61. Affected by this vulnerability is the function eval of the component visualize_data. Such manipulation of the argument vegalite_specification leads to code injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. 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 confidenceCode injection vulnerability in the visualize_data function where the vegalite_specification argument is passed directly to Python's eval() without sanitization, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by crafting malicious specification input.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Locate the visualize_data functionSearch your codebase for the function definition 'def visualize_data' and identify the source file or library containing itAffected if The function exists in your codebase or an imported library
-
Verify eval() usage on vegalite_specificationInspect the function body to confirm whether the vegalite_specification argument is passed directly to eval() without sanitizationAffected if The code contains 'eval(vegalite_specification)' or similar direct eval() call on this parameter
-
Confirm external exposureCheck if visualize_data is exposed via an API endpoint, web route, or accepts user-controlled input from network requestsAffected if The function or its containing endpoint can be reached by untrusted external input
-
Check library versionRun 'pip show <package_name>' or check your requirements.txt to identify the installed version of the library providing visualize_dataAffected if The version is unknown, unpatched, or within an affected range
You are affected if visualize_data uses eval() on the vegalite_specification parameter and accepts untrusted input without sanitization.
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 dataReplace eval() with safe parsing (ast.literal_eval or dedicated JSON/vegalite schema validator) and implement strict input validation before passing to any evaluation function. Restrict network access to the endpoint until patched.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-1977 — 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-2026-1977 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