CVE-2026-7319
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 flaw has been found in elinsky execution-system-mcp 0.1.0. The impacted element is the function _get_context_file_path of the file src/execution_system_mcp/server.py of the component add_action Tool. This manipulation of the argument context causes path traversal. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.
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 _get_context_file_path function within src/execution_system_mcp/server.py of the execution-system-mcp package version 0.1.0. The add_action Tool fails to properly sanitize the 'context' argument, allowing attackers to manipulate file paths using directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../) 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
- 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 if execution-system-mcp is installedRun 'pip show execution-system-mcp' or check your Python environment for the packageAffected if The package is not installed or version is not 0.1.0 (no other versions listed as affected)
-
Locate the vulnerable server.py fileFind src/execution_system_mcp/server.py in your installation directory or package pathAffected if The file exists in version 0.1.0 of the package
-
Verify the _get_context_file_path function existsOpen server.py and search for the _get_context_file_path function definitionAffected if The function is present without proper path validation on the 'context' parameter
-
Confirm add_action Tool is in useCheck your application configuration or code that imports and uses the add_action Tool from this packageAffected if The add_action Tool is being used and accepts a 'context' argument
-
Test for path traversal susceptibilityIf the add_action Tool accepts user input for the 'context' parameter, inspect whether the code validates or sanitizes directory traversal sequences like ../Affected if The 'context' argument accepts unsanitized user input containing ../ sequences
You are affected if you have execution-system-mcp version 0.1.0 installed and use the add_action Tool with a 'context' parameter that accepts unvalidated user input, allowing directory traversal attacks.
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 and canonicalization of the context path argument in _get_context_file_path, ensuring the resolved path stays within the intended base directory. Use os.path.realpath() to resolve symlinks and verify the path prefix matches the allowed directory.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7319 — 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-2026-7319 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