CVE-2026-7384
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 ezequiroga mcp-bases 357ca19c7a49a9b9cb2ef639b366f03aba8bea39/c630b8ab0f970614d42da8e566e9c0d15a16414c. This impacts the function search_papers of the file research_server.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument topic results in path traversal. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is now public and may be used. This product follows a rolling release approach for continuous delivery, so version details for affected or updated releases are not provided. 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 search_papers function of research_server.py in the mcp-bases project. The topic parameter is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to use traversal sequences (e.g., ../) to access files outside the intended directory. Remote exploitation is possible and the exploit is publicly available.
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 mcp-bases installationLocate the mcp-bases package in your environment using pip list, package manager search, or by finding research_server.py in your codebaseAffected if The mcp-bases package is installed and research_server.py exists in your environment
-
Locate the vulnerable functionOpen research_server.py and locate the search_papers function definitionAffected if The search_papers function exists in research_server.py
-
Inspect topic parameter handlingExamine the search_papers function body to see how the topic parameter is processed and whether it is used in file path operations without sanitizationAffected if The topic parameter is directly used in file path operations without validation
-
Check for path traversal validationLook for input validation or sanitization logic on the topic parameter before file access, such as checks for .., /, \, or path normalizationAffected if No path traversal sequence filtering or path canonicalization is present on the topic parameter
-
Determine remote exposureCheck if the search_parts function is exposed via an API endpoint, RPC handler, or any callable interface that accepts external input for the topic parameterAffected if The function is remotely accessible and accepts untrusted input for the topic parameter
You are affected if mcp-bases is installed with research_server.py containing the search_papers function, the topic parameter lacks path traversal validation, and the function is exposed to untrusted input.
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 consider using allowlist-based filtering or canonicalizing paths before file access.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7384 — 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-2026-7384 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