CVE-2026-7157
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 flaw has been found in disler aider-mcp-server up to b2516fa466d0d851932da92ee6d0e66946db9efc. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file src/aider_mcp_server/server.py of the component aider_ai_code. This manipulation of the argument relative_editable_files causes command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. This product follows a rolling release approach for continuous delivery, so version details for affected or updated releases are not provided. 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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in disler/aider-mcp-server where the relative_editable_files argument in src/aider_mcp_server/server.py (aider_ai_code component) is not properly sanitized before being passed to shell execution, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands.
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 aider-mcp-server is installedCheck for the presence of the aider-mcp-server package in your Python environment: pip show aider-mcp-server, or look for the directory src/aider_mcp_server in your project dependenciesAffected if The package is installed and present in the environment
-
Determine the installed versionRun 'pip show aider-mcp-server' or check your requirements.txt/poetry.lock file for the exact version number of aider-mcp-serverAffected if The version is unknown or falls within any version range prior to a patched release
-
Inspect server.py for vulnerable code patternExamine src/aider_mcp_server/server.py and search for usage of the relative_editable_files parameter being passed to shell execution functions (such as os.system, subprocess.call with shell=True, or similar) without proper sanitizationAffected if The code passes relative_editable_files directly to shell execution without input validation or sanitization
-
Check if the vulnerable feature is in useReview your MCP server configuration or client calls to see if relative_editable_files is being passed as an argument to the aider_ai_code componentAffected if The relative_editable_files parameter is actively used in your configuration or API calls to the MCP server
A defender is affected if aider-mcp-server is installed, the relative_editable_files feature is in use, and the server.py code passes this parameter to shell execution without sanitization.
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 input validation and sanitization on the relative_editable_files parameter; avoid shell commands or use parameterized exec methods instead of string concatenation; if possible, restrict network exposure of the MCP server until a fix is available.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7157 — 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-2026-7157 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