CVE-2026-7147
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 detected in JoeCastrom mcp-chat-studio up to 1.5.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file server/routes/llm.js of the component LLM Models API. Performing a manipulation of the argument req.query.base_url results in server-side request forgery. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is now public 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 · high confidenceThe mcp-chat-studio application up to v1.5.0 contains an SSRF vulnerability in the LLM Models API (file server/routes/llm.js). The application accepts user-controlled input via the req.query.base_url parameter and uses it to make server-side HTTP requests without proper validation, allowing attackers to induce the server to request arbitrary URLs.
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 if mcp-chat-studio is installedLocate the application installation directory and look for package.json or check running processes for 'mcp-chat-studio' or 'mcp-chat'Affected if The application is present in the environment
-
Check the installed versionInspect package.json, package-lock.json, or run npm list mcp-chat-studio to determine the version numberAffected if The version is v1.5.0 or earlier (any version up to and including v1.5.0)
-
Verify the LLM Models API endpoint existsInspect the file server/routes/llm.js in the application directory to confirm the endpoint handles base_url query parameterAffected if The file exists and contains code that uses req.query.base_url for HTTP requests
-
Test if the base_url parameter is acceptedSend a GET request to the LLM API endpoint with a test base_url parameter, e.g., /api/llm/models?base_url=http://example.comAffected if The application accepts and processes the base_url parameter without rejecting or validating it
-
Confirm network accessibility from the serverReview outbound firewall rules or network policies to determine if the application server can initiate arbitrary outbound HTTP connectionsAffected if The server has unrestricted outbound network access, allowing potential SSRF to reach internal services or metadata endpoints
You are affected if mcp-chat-studio version v1.5.0 or earlier is running with the LLM Models API exposed and the base_url parameter is accepted without validation.
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 allowlist-based validation for the base_url parameter to restrict requests to approved endpoints, and apply network segmentation to prevent the server from reaching internal services or cloud metadata endpoints.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7147 — 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-2026-7147 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