CVE-2026-7205
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 identified in duartium papers-mcp-server 9ceb3812a6458ba7922ca24a7406f8807bc55598. Impacted is the function search_papers of the file src/main.py. Such manipulation of the argument topic leads to path traversal. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might 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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability in the search_papers function of papers-mcp-server allows remote attackers to access arbitrary files on the server by manipulating the topic parameter with path traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../etc/passwd). The vulnerability exists because user input is not properly validated or sanitized before being used in file operations.
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 papers-mcp-server installationRun 'pip show papers-mcp-server' or check your project dependencies to find the installed version of papers-mcp-serverAffected if The installed version falls within the affected version range and src/main.py with search_papers function exists
-
Locate vulnerable source fileFind src/main.py in the papers-mcp-server installation directory and verify it contains the search_papers functionAffected if The file src/main.py exists and contains a search_papers function that uses the 'topic' parameter without validation
-
Check if topic parameter lacks validationInspect the search_papers function in src/main.py and look for input validation on the 'topic' parameter (e.g., checks for '../', path resolution, or allowlist validation)Affected if The 'topic' argument is used directly in file operations or path construction without sanitization or validation checks
-
Determine if search_papers is exposedCheck if the application exposes an API endpoint, CLI command, or other interface that allows external input to reach the search_papers functionAffected if The search_papers function can be invoked with user-controlled 'topic' input through an API, web interface, or other accessible entry point
You are affected if papers-mcp-server is installed with a vulnerable version, src/main.py contains the unvalidated search_parts function, and that function is accessible via an exposed interface that accepts the 'topic' parameter.
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 to restrict the topic parameter to safe characters and reject path traversal sequences. Use path canonicalization (e.g., os.path.realpath) combined with directory containment checks to ensure file access remains within allowed boundaries.
- 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-2026-7205 — 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-2026-7205 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