CVE-2026-3959
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 vulnerability was found in 0xKoda WireMCP up to 7f45f8b2b4adeb76be8c6227eefb38533fdd6b1e. Impacted is the function server.tool of the file index.js of the component Tshark CLI Command Handler. The manipulation results in os command injection. The attack needs to be approached locally. The exploit has been made public and could 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 confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in the Tshark CLI Command Handler component of WireMCP. The server.tool function in index.js improperly handles input, allowing injection of arbitrary OS commands. The attack requires local access but the exploit is publicly available.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 WireMCP installationSearch for the WireMCP package directory, typically found in node_modules/wiremcp or via 'npm list wiremcp' commandAffected if WireMCP is installed on the system
-
Identify WireMCP versionRun 'npm list wiremcp' or check package.json for the installed version numberAffected if Any version of WireMCP is installed (no fixed version range provided, compare to any available patch)
-
Verify Tshark is accessibleRun 'tshark --version' to confirm Tshark CLI is installed and available in system PATHAffected if Tshark is installed and accessible to the WireMCP process
-
Inspect index.js command handlerLocate the server.tool function in the WireMCP index.js file and examine how it constructs shell commands with user inputAffected if The code uses unsanitized user input in command construction (e.g., string concatenation with exec or spawn)
-
Check for exposed tool interfaceVerify if the WireMCP server exposes its tool functions to local users without proper input validationAffected if The server.tool function accepts user-controlled parameters without sanitization
A user is affected if WireMCP is installed with a vulnerable version of its index.js that allows unsanitized input to reach shell command execution via the Tshark CLI handler.
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 sanitization on all user-supplied parameters before passing to shell commands. Replace dynamic command construction with parameterized command execution or safe API alternatives that avoid shell interpretation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-3959 — 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-2026-3959 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