CVE-2026-7213
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 ef10007 MLOps_MCP 1.0.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file fastmcp_server.py of the component save_file Tool. The manipulation of the argument filename/destination results in path traversal. The attack may be performed from remote. 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 · moderate confidencePath traversal vulnerability in ef10007 MLOps_MCP 1.0.0's save_file tool within fastmcp_server.py allows remote attackers to manipulate the filename/destination arguments to write files outside the intended directory, potentially overwriting system files or accessing sensitive locations.
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.
-
Check if MLOps_MCP package is installedRun 'pip show mlops_mcp' or 'pip list | grep -i mlops' to find if the ef10007 MLOps_MCP package is present in the Python environmentAffected if The package is not installed - not affected; if installed, proceed to next checks
-
Verify the installed versionRun 'pip show mlops_mcp' and check the Version field, or import the package and check its __version__ attributeAffected if Version is exactly 1.0.0 - vulnerable; versions other than 1.0.0 may have different patch status
-
Locate fastmcp_server.py in the installationFind the package installation path using 'python -c "import mlops_mcp; print(mlops_mcp.__file__)"' and navigate to locate fastmcp_server.py in that directory treeAffected if File exists at the expected location - vulnerable component is present
-
Confirm save_file tool is exposedExamine fastmcp_server.py and search for function definitions related to 'save_file' or file upload/save operations that accept a filename or destination parameterAffected if A save_file tool/function accepting filename argument exists - the vulnerable code path is present
-
Check for path traversal protection in the save_file functionReview the save_file function code in fastmcp_server.py - inspect whether the filename parameter undergoes validation such as os.path.basename() stripping, allowlist checking, or secure base directory boundary enforcement before file write operationsAffected if No input validation or path sanitization is performed on the filename parameter - the vulnerability is present and exploitable
If MLOps_MCP version 1.0.0 is installed, fastmcp_server.py exists, the save_file tool is exposed, and the filename parameter lacks validation/sanitization, the environment is affected by CVE-2026-7213.
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 to ensure the resolved path stays within an allowed directory whitelist; validate that the final normalized path does not escape the intended write directory.
- 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-2026-7213 — 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-2026-7213 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