CVE-2026-7234
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 weakness has been identified in BrowserOperator browser-operator-core up to 0.6.0. Affected is the function startsWith of the file scripts/component_server/server.js. Executing a manipulation of the argument request.url can lead to path traversal. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. 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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability exists in BrowserOperator browser-operator-core (versions up to 0.6.0) in the scripts/component_server/server.js file. The startsWith function improperly validates the request.url parameter, allowing attackers to manipulate URL paths to access files outside the intended web root. This remote vulnerability has a public exploit.
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 browser-operator-core versionLocate the package.json file for browser-operator-core and check the 'version' field, or run 'npm list browser-operator-core' if installed as a Node.js dependencyAffected if version is 0.6.0 or lower (including any 0.x.x version up to 0.6.0)
-
Verify vulnerable file existsCheck for the presence of scripts/component_server/server.js within the browser-operator-core installation directoryAffected if the file exists at scripts/component_server/server.js in the installation path
-
Confirm component_server is enabledInspect the project's configuration files (e.g., config.json, settings.json, or main configuration) for any entry that enables or starts the component_server module, or check running processes for node.js executing component_serverAffected if component_server is configured to run or is actively running as a service
-
Inspect request.url validation logicOpen scripts/component_server/server.js and examine the code that handles request.url, looking for uses of startsWith() for path validation without proper path traversal checksAffected if code uses startsWith() to validate request.url without blocking ../ sequences or canonicalizing the path
You are affected if browser-operator-core version is 0.6.0 or lower AND the component_server module is enabled AND the vulnerable validation logic in server.js is present.
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 on request.url using allowlists or canonicalization to prevent path traversal sequences (../) and ensure the path resolves within the allowed directory. Consider upgrading to a patched version once available.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7234 — 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-2026-7234 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