CVE-2026-7443
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 weakness has been identified in BurtTheCoder mcp-dnstwist up to 1.0.4. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fuzz_domain of the file src/index.ts of the component MCP Interface. Executing a manipulation of the argument Request can lead to os command injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could 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 confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in the mcp-dnstwist MCP Interface's fuzz_domain function in src/index.ts. User-controlled input from the Request argument is passed to shell execution without sanitization, allowing arbitrary command execution. The exploit is publicly available and the vendor has not responded to early notification.
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 mcp-dnstwist package is installedRun 'npm list mcp-dnstwist' or check package.json dependenciesAffected if The package appears in installed dependencies
-
Determine the installed versionRun 'npm list mcp-dnstwist' to see the version number, or inspect node_modules/mcp-dnstwist/package.jsonAffected if Version is unknown or falls within a vulnerable range prior to fix
-
Locate the fuzz_domain function in source codeExamine src/index.ts in the mcp-dnstwist package installation directory and search for 'fuzz_domain' function definitionAffected if The function exists and processes Request argument input
-
Verify shell execution with unsanitized inputIn src/index.ts, inspect the fuzz_domain function for use of exec, spawn, or similar with string concatenation involving the Request parameter without validationAffected if The code passes Request input directly to shell execution functions without sanitization or shell: false option
-
Confirm MCP server exposure to untrusted inputCheck if the MCP server endpoint is accessible to untrusted users or external systems that could send crafted Request argumentsAffected if The MCP interface accepts input from untrusted sources that could reach the fuzz_domain function
If mcp-dnstwist is installed and its fuzz_domain function uses shell execution with unsanitized Request input, the environment is affected by CVE-2026-7443.
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 use parameterized command execution (e.g., child_process with array arguments and shell: false) instead of string concatenation for shell commands. Alternatively, use a dedicated library for domain fuzzing that does not invoke system commands.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7443 — 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-2026-7443 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