dbcve.org
OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2026-59726

CRITICAL · 10.0 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-09
Patch available
A vendor patch is available. No clean upgrade release — apply the published patch.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available 6 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
Ruflo is an agent meta-harness for Claude Code and Codex. Prior to 3.16.3, ruflo's default docker-compose deployment exposed the MCP bridge POST /mcp and POST /mcp/:group endpoints without authentication, allowing an unauthenticated network attacker to invoke tools/call to terminal_execute, obtain a shell in the bridge container, read provider API keys, and poison AgentDB learning-store patterns. This issue is fixed in version 3.16.3.

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

Ruflo's default docker-compose deployment exposed MCP bridge endpoints (/mcp and /mcp/:group) without authentication, allowing any network attacker to invoke terminal_execute tools, gain shell access to the bridge container, extract API keys, and manipulate AgentDB learning data.

MitigationUpgrade to Ruflo version 3.16.3 or implement authentication on the exposed MCP bridge endpoints in the docker-compose deployment.

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
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 your ruflo deployment method
    Determine if you deployed ruflo using docker-compose (check for docker-compose.yml or compose.yaml files in your deployment artifacts)
    Affected if You are using docker-compose to deploy ruflo with default settings
  2. Check installed ruflo version
    Review your docker-compose.yml or running containers to identify the ruflo image tag or version you are using
    Affected if Your ruflo version is earlier than 3.16.3 (versions prior to the fix lack authentication on MCP bridge endpoints)
  3. Verify MCP bridge endpoint exposure
    Inspect your docker-compose networking configuration to determine if the MCP bridge service ports are exposed to the network or if there is no authentication layer in front of POST /mcp and POST /mcp/:group endpoints
    Affected if The MCP bridge endpoints (typically port 8080 or the exposed service port) are accessible from untrusted networks without authentication
  4. Confirm authentication configuration for MCP endpoints
    Check if your deployment includes any authentication mechanism (such as API keys, OAuth, or middleware) protecting the /mcp endpoints, or review the ruflo configuration for mcp.auth settings
    Affected if No authentication is configured or enabled for the MCP bridge endpoints in your deployment

You are affected if you are running a ruflo version earlier than 3.16.3 with docker-compose defaults where the MCP bridge endpoints are network-accessible without authentication configured.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Patch available Apply the vendor patch
Vendor patch github.com →
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to Ruflo version 3.16.3 or implement authentication on the exposed MCP bridge endpoints in the docker-compose deployment.

Recommended fix High confidence

3.16.3

  1. Upgrade the Ruflo installation to version 3.16.3 or later
  2. If using docker-compose, update the image tag in your docker-compose.yml to pull version 3.16.3
  3. After upgrading, verify that authentication is now required for the MCP bridge endpoints (/mcp and /mcp/:group)
  4. Review and rotate any API keys that may have been exposed during the time the vulnerability was present

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get the patch applied

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-59726 — 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-2026-59726 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