CVE-2026-7061
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 weakness has been identified in Toowiredd chatgpt-mcp-server up to 0.1.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file src/services/docker.service.ts of the component MCP/HTTP. This manipulation causes os command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. 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 · moderate confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in Toowiredd chatgpt-mcp-server (up to 0.1.0) within the docker.service.ts file under the MCP/HTTP component. Remote attackers can execute arbitrary OS commands via unsanitized input passed to system calls.
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify chatgpt-mcp-server installationLocate the chatgpt-mcp-server package in your environment. Check installed packages via npm list chatgpt-mcp-server, pip list, or equivalent package manager. Alternatively, search for the docker.service.ts file in your codebase.Affected if The package is installed with version 0.1.0 or earlier, or the file docker.service.ts exists in an MCP/HTTP component directory.
-
Verify the vulnerable docker.service.ts file existsSearch for the file docker.service.ts within your chatgpt-mcp-server installation directory, typically under src/ or a similar source path. Use a file search command like find . -name docker.service.ts.Affected if The file docker.service.ts is present in the MCP/HTTP component directory.
-
Inspect the docker.service.ts for system call patternsOpen docker.service.ts and search for code that executes system commands, such as exec(), spawn(), or similar functions that invoke shell commands. Look for places where input is passed directly to these calls without visible sanitization.Affected if The file contains exec(), spawn(), or equivalent calls that process user input without input validation or parameterization.
-
Determine if MCP/HTTP component is exposedCheck your server configuration or startup logs to confirm whether the MCP/HTTP component is enabled and accessible to network requests. Look for HTTP endpoints that route to the MCP component.Affected if The MCP/HTTP component is enabled and accessible, allowing external input to reach the vulnerable code path.
You are affected if chatgpt-mcp-server version 0.1.0 or earlier is installed, the docker.service.ts file exists with unsanitized system calls, and the MCP/HTTP component is exposed to process incoming requests.
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 dataSanitize and validate all user-controlled input before passing to shell commands; prefer parameterized execution methods or whitelist-based validation to prevent command injection.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7061 — 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-2026-7061 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