CVE-2026-7318
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 elie mcp-project 0.1.0. The affected element is the function search_papers of the file research_server.py. The manipulation of the argument topic results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. 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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability exists in the search_papers function of research_server.py in mcp-project 0.1.0. The topic argument is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to use '..' sequences to access 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 installed version of elie mcp-projectCheck the package version using pip show mcp-project or pip list | grep mcp-project, or inspect the version field in the project's setup.py/pyproject.tomlAffected if Version is 0.1.0 or falls within any unpatched version range for this package
-
Locate research_server.py in the elie mcp-project installationFind the file containing the search_papers function, typically in the package installation directory or source repository under a path like research_server.pyAffected if The file exists and contains the search_papers function
-
Inspect the search_papers function for unsanitized 'topic' parameter usageOpen research_server.py and locate the search_papers function definition. Examine how the 'topic' argument is used in file path operations (e.g., os.path.join, open(), or similar file access functions)Affected if The 'topic' parameter is directly used in path operations without sanitization (e.g., no removal of '../' sequences, no path.realpath validation)
-
Verify if file operations target a specific directory without bounds checkingCheck if the function performs file reads/writes based on 'topic' without validating that the resolved path remains within an allowed directoryAffected if File operations use 'topic' in path construction without validating the final path stays within an intended directory boundary
You are affected if elie mcp-project version 0.1.0 is installed AND the research_server.py file contains a search_papers function that uses the 'topic' parameter in unsanitized file path operations.
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 topic parameter to reject path traversal sequences ('..') and restrict file access to intended directories only. Consider using allowlist validation or canonicalizing paths before access.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7318 — 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-2026-7318 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