CVE-2026-7159
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 found in douinc mkdocs-mcp-plugin up to 0.4.1. This affects the function read_document/list_documents of the file server.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument docs_dir/file_path results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor confirms, that the "fix will be published within a few days."
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 confidencePath traversal vulnerability in mkdocs-mcp-plugin server.py allows remote attackers to access arbitrary files via manipulated docs_dir/file_path arguments containing ../ sequences in the read_document and list_documents functions.
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 mkdocs-mcp-plugin is installedRun 'pip list' or check your project dependencies (requirements.txt, pyproject.toml) for the package mkdocs-mcp-pluginAffected if The package is present in your environment
-
Determine the installed versionRun 'pip show mkdocs-mcp-plugin' or check your dependency lock file for the exact version numberAffected if The installed version matches or falls within the vulnerable version range for this plugin
-
Verify the MCP server is exposedCheck if the MCP server (typically running via server.py) is listening on a network-accessible interface rather than localhost onlyAffected if The server accepts connections from non-localhost sources and the vulnerable read_document or list_documents functions are accessible via the MCP protocol
-
Check docs_dir configurationInspect your mkdocs.yml configuration file for the docs_dir setting and verify whether it points to a sensitive directoryAffected if docs_dir is configured and the server has read access to the filesystem beyond the intended documentation directory
-
Test for path traversal vulnerabilityIf the MCP endpoints are accessible, attempt to access a file outside docs_dir using ../ sequences in the file_path parameter (e.g., ../../../etc/passwd)Affected if The server returns content from files outside the intended docs_dir boundary, confirming the vulnerability is exploitable
Your environment is affected if mkdocs-mcp-plugin is installed with a vulnerable version and the MCP server functions (read_document or list_documents) are network-accessible with the docs_dir pointing to a directory you intend to protect.
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 with path canonicalization - validate that resolved paths remain within the intended docs_dir boundary before file operations. Restrict or disable these functions until vendor patch is available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7159 — 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-2026-7159 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