dbcve.org
InjectionWeakness · CWE-74

CVE-2026-7039

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-26
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
80/100
Remediation priority · High
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 security vulnerability has been detected in tufantunc ssh-mcp up to 1.5.0. The affected element is the function shell.write of the file src/index.ts. Such manipulation of the argument Description leads to command injection. The attack must be carried out locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. 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 · moderate confidence

Command injection vulnerability in tufantunc ssh-mcp up to v1.5.0 in the shell.write function within src/index.ts. The Description argument is not sanitized before being passed to shell execution, allowing local attackers to inject arbitrary commands.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and escaping on the Description parameter before passing to shell.write; consider using parameterized alternatives to shell commands if available. Upstream patch should be monitored and applied once released.

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
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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. Check if ssh-mcp is installed
    Run 'npm list ssh-mcp' or 'npm list -g ssh-mcp' depending on installation scope, or check package.json for the dependency
    Affected if ssh-mcp is listed as a dependency and its version is v1.5.0 or lower
  2. Confirm the exact installed version
    Run 'npm list ssh-mcp version' or check node_modules/ssh-mcp/package.json for the 'version' field
    Affected if Version is 1.5.0 or any version below 1.5.0
  3. Locate the vulnerable source file
    Find src/index.ts in the ssh-mcp package (typically in node_modules/ssh-mcp/src/index.ts) and search for the shell.write function call that uses a Description parameter
    Affected if The shell.write function in src/index.ts processes a Description argument without visible sanitization
  4. Verify the attack surface
    Inspect the code around shell.write to see if the Description parameter accepts external/user-controlled input - check how this function is invoked and what data sources feed into it
    Affected if The Description argument can be controlled by user input without validation before reaching shell.write
  5. Check for any sanitization layers
    Grep the source code for any input validation, escaping, or sanitization functions applied to the Description parameter before shell.write is called
    Affected if No sanitization function is found between user input and the shell.write call with Description parameter

The environment is affected if ssh-mcp version 1.5.0 or lower is installed AND the Description parameter to shell.write can accept unsanitized user 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 escaping on the Description parameter before passing to shell.write; consider using parameterized alternatives to shell commands if available. Upstream patch should be monitored and applied once released.

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-2026-7039 — 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-2026-7039 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