dbcve.org
Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2026-7216

HIGH · 7.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
82/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A weakness has been identified in donchelo processing-claude-mcp-bridge up to e017b20a4b592a45531a6392f494007f04e661bd. Impacted is an unknown function of the file processing_server.py of the component create_sketch Tool. This manipulation of the argument sketch_name causes path traversal. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. 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 confidence

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the create_sketch Tool of processing_server.py where the sketch_name parameter is not properly validated. An attacker can use directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../') or absolute paths to write files outside the intended sketch directory, potentially overwriting system files or accessing sensitive locations.

MitigationImplement strict input validation for the sketch_name parameter, using allowlist validation and canonicalizing paths to verify the final resolved path remains within the intended directory bounds before 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate the processing_server.py file
    Find the installation directory of processing-claude-mcp-bridge and locate processing_server.py (typically in the project root or server/ subdirectory)
    Affected if The file exists and contains a create_sketch function definition
  2. Check the installed package version
    Run 'pip show processing-claude-mcp-bridge' or check the version in pyproject.toml/setup.py if the package is installed
    Affected if The version cannot be determined or is earlier than whatever version includes the fix
  3. Inspect sketch_name parameter validation
    Open processing_server.py and locate the create_sketch function. Examine how the sketch_name parameter is handled - look for input validation, path sanitization, or directory containment checks
    Affected if No validation exists that rejects '../' or '..\' sequences, or if the code directly uses sketch_name in file path operations without canonical path verification
  4. Verify directory containment enforcement
    Check if the code uses os.path.realpath(), os.path.abspath(), or similar methods to verify the final path stays within an allowed directory, or if an allowlist is used
    Affected if The code does not verify that resolved paths remain within the intended sketch directory
  5. Confirm the service is network accessible
    Check if the processing-claude-mcp-bridge server is running and exposed (check process list, netstat, or service configuration)
    Affected if The service is running and accepting connections from untrusted sources

You are affected if the create_sketch function in processing_server.py lacks input validation on the sketch_name parameter to reject path traversal sequences and does not enforce directory containment.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation for the sketch_name parameter, using allowlist validation and canonicalizing paths to verify the final resolved path remains within the intended directory bounds before file operations.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7216 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-7216 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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