dbcve.org
InjectionWeakness · CWE-74

CVE-2026-7316

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 vulnerability has been found in eiliyaabedini aider-mcp up to 667b914301aada695aab0e46d1fb3a7d5e32c8af. Affected is an unknown function of the file aider_mcp.py of the component code_with_ai. The manipulation of the argument working_dir/editable_files leads to command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. 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

Command injection vulnerability in the code_with_ai function of aider_mcp.py where the working_dir and editable_files arguments are passed unsafely to system commands, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary shell commands.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and sanitization for working_dir and editable_files parameters; use safe APIs (e.g., subprocess with shell=False, avoid shell invocation) or parameterized methods instead of constructing shell commands from user input.

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. Check if aider-mcp is installed
    Run 'pip show aider-mcp' or check your package manager for the aider-mcp package
    Affected if The package is not installed or not found
  2. Locate the aider_mcp.py file
    Find the installed aider_mcp.py file in your Python environment (typically in site-packages)
    Affected if The file exists and contains a code_with_ai function
  3. Verify the vulnerable parameters exist
    Inspect aider_mcp.py and locate the code_with_ai function; confirm it accepts working_dir or editable_files parameters
    Affected if The function accepts these parameters without evident sanitization
  4. Check for input validation code
    Search the code for sanitization routines (allowlists, shell character escaping, or safe API usage) on working_dir and editable_files before command execution
    Affected if No sanitization or validation is performed on these parameters before they are used in command execution
  5. Confirm the execution path uses these arguments unsafely
    Trace how working_dir or editable_files are passed to underlying command execution functions (e.g., subprocess, os.system, shell=True)
    Affected if These arguments are passed directly to command execution without escaping or safe API alternatives

You are affected if aider-mcp is installed and the code_with_ai function uses working_dir or editable_files arguments in command execution without sanitization.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation and sanitization for working_dir and editable_files parameters; use safe APIs (e.g., subprocess with shell=False, avoid shell invocation) or parameterized methods instead of constructing shell commands from user input.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence
  1. Locate the vulnerable file aider_mcp.py in the aider-mcp repository
  2. Review the code_with_ai component function(s) that handle the working_dir and editable_files arguments
  3. Implement proper input validation: validate that working_dir and editable_files paths are within expected directories and do not contain shell metacharacters
  4. Use safe APIs instead of shell execution: avoid os.system(), subprocess with shell=True, or similar functions that interpret shell commands
  5. If subprocess is required, use subprocess.run() with shell=False and pass arguments as a list, not a string
  6. Apply path validation to ensure paths resolve to expected directories (e.g., use os.path.realpath() and compare against allowed base paths)
  7. Test the patched code with malicious input patterns (e.g., paths containing ;, |, &, $(), backticks) to verify the injection is blocked

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,780
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,848.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7316 — 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-2026-7316 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