dbcve.org
Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-77

CVE-2026-5741

HIGH · 7.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-07
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
82/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 suvarchal docker-mcp-server up to 0.1.0. The impacted element is the function stop_container/remove_container/pull_image of the file src/index.ts of the component HTTP Interface. This manipulation causes os command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. 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

OS command injection vulnerability in docker-mcp-server versions up to 0.1.0. The stop_container, remove_container, and pull_image functions in src/index.ts accept user input (likely container names or image names) and pass it to system shell commands without proper sanitization, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and sanitization for all container/image name parameters. Prefer using Docker API libraries instead of shell commands, or use parameterized command execution that avoids shell interpretation.

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 checks

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

  1. Identify if docker-mcp-server is installed
    Run 'npm list docker-mcp-server' or check your node_modules for the package, or look for it in your package.json dependencies
    Affected if The package is present in your environment
  2. Determine the installed version
    Run 'npm list docker-mcp-server' to see the exact version, or check package.json for the version number
    Affected if The version is 0.1.0 or any earlier version (the vulnerability affects versions up to 0.1.0)
  3. Check if the HTTP Interface is enabled
    Examine your runtime configuration, environment variables, or startup command for the server. Look for flags or settings that enable the HTTP API endpoint (the vulnerable functions are in src/index.ts HTTP Interface)
    Affected if The HTTP Interface is exposed and accessible to network callers
  4. Verify if the vulnerable functions are accessible
    Check your server's exposed endpoints or API documentation. The affected functions are stop_container, remove_container, and pull_image. Determine if these endpoints are reachable
    Affected if Any of the three vulnerable functions (stop_container, remove_container, pull_image) are exposed via the HTTP Interface
  5. Confirm shell command execution is used
    If you have access to the source code in src/index.ts, inspect the implementations of stop_container, remove_container, and pull_image to verify they construct shell commands with unsanitized user input
    Affected if The code uses shell command execution (such as exec(), spawn(), or shell=true) with container names or image names without sanitization

You are affected if docker-mcp-server version 0.1.0 or earlier is installed AND the HTTP Interface with its stop_container, remove_container, or pull_image endpoints is exposed to untrusted input.

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 input validation and sanitization for all container/image name parameters. Prefer using Docker API libraries instead of shell commands, or use parameterized command execution that avoids shell interpretation.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5741 — 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-2026-5741 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