CVE-2026-7314
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 eiceblue spire-doc-mcp-server 1.0.0. This affects the function get_doc_path of the file src/spire_doc_mcp/api/base.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument document_name results in path traversal. The attack can be initiated remotely. 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 · high confidenceA path traversal vulnerability exists in the get_doc_path function of src/spire_doc_mcp/api/base.py in spire-doc-mcp-server version 1.0.0. The document_name parameter is not validated, allowing remote attackers to use traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../') to access arbitrary files outside the intended directory.
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.
-
Verify spire-doc-mcp-server installation and versionRun command to list installed packages (e.g., pip list, npm list, or check system package manager) and search for spire-doc-mcp-server. Also check any requirements.txt, package.json, or similar dependency files in your project.Affected if The installed version of spire-doc-mcp-server is 1.0.0 or an unconfirmed version (no patched version known from this advisory).
-
Locate the get_doc_path function in the codebaseSearch the codebase for the function definition: grep -r "def get_doc_path" or inspect the source code files of spire-doc-mcp-server to locate this specific function.Affected if The get_doc_path function exists and is present in the codebase, meaning the vulnerable code path is available.
-
Identify how document_name parameter receives inputSearch for calls to get_doc_path and trace the document_name argument. Look for API endpoints, CLI handlers, or RPC methods that accept user-supplied document names and pass them to this function.Affected if The document_name parameter can be influenced by external input (HTTP requests, CLI arguments, API calls, or other untrusted sources) without validation.
-
Check for path traversal protection in the functionInspect the get_doc_path function source code for input validation logic. Look for checks that reject "../" sequences, use of os.path.realpath(), os.path.abspath(), or path containment verification (e.g., startswith base directory check).Affected if No path traversal validation exists in the function, or the validation can be bypassed (e.g., accepts ../ sequences without rejecting or canonicalizing the path).
You are affected if spire-doc-mcp-server version 1.0.0 is installed AND the get_doc_path function processes untrusted document_name input without proper path traversal validation.
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 the document_name parameter to reject path traversal sequences and restrict file access to an allowed directory whitelist or use path normalization with boundary checking.
- 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-2026-7314 — 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-2026-7314 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