CVE-2026-7403
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 security flaw has been discovered in geldata gel-mcp 0.1.0. This impacts the function list_rules/fetch_rule of the file src/gel_mcp/server.py. The manipulation of the argument rule_name results in path traversal. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. 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 gel-mcp 0.1.0 within the list_rules/fetch_rule functions in src/gel_mcp/server.py. The rule_name parameter is not properly validated, allowing attackers to use path 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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 gel-mcp versionRun 'pip show gel-mcp' or check your package manager for the installed version of gel-mcpAffected if The installed version is 0.1.0 or if the version cannot be determined but the package is present
-
Locate vulnerable source fileCheck for the presence of src/gel_mcp/server.py in your gel-mcp installation directoryAffected if The file exists and contains the list_rules and fetch_rule functions
-
Inspect rule_name parameter handlingReview the source code of list_rules/fetch_rule functions in server.py to see how rule_name is processed - look for lack of input validation on this parameterAffected if The rule_name parameter is used directly in file operations without validation or sanitization of path traversal sequences
-
Check for untrusted input sourcesTrace how the rule_name parameter receives its value - determine if it accepts input from users, APIs, or external sources that could contain ../ sequencesAffected if rule_name can receive untrusted input without filtering of path traversal characters
-
Monitor for path traversal patternsIf logging or audit trails exist, search for requests containing ../ patterns in rule_name values (e.g., ../../etc/passwd)Affected if Such patterns appear in logs or audit records indicating exploitation attempts
You are affected if gel-mcp version 0.1.0 is installed and the list_rules/fetch_rule functions handle the rule_name parameter without validating or sanitizing path traversal sequences from 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 rule_name parameter to reject path traversal sequences and use os.path.abspath() or similar to ensure accessed files remain within the intended directory bounds.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7403 — 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-2026-7403 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