CVE-2026-7642
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 pskill9 website-downloader up to 0.1.0. This affects the function download_website of the file src/index.ts of the component MCP Interface. Performing a manipulation of the argument outputPath results in os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. 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 · high confidenceThe pskill9 website-downloader package versions up to 0.1.0 contain an OS command injection vulnerability in the download_website function within src/index.ts (MCP Interface). The outputPath argument is not properly sanitized before being used in OS command execution, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary shell commands by manipulating this argument.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 the package is installedRun 'npm list pskill9-website-downloader' or check your package.json dependencies for the pskill9-website-downloader entryAffected if The package is listed in dependencies
-
Check the installed versionRun 'npm list pskill9-website-downloader' to see the installed version number, or inspect package-lock.json for the versionAffected if The version is 0.1.0 or any version up to and including 0.1.0
-
Inspect the download_website function sourceLocate and open src/index.ts in the package directory (under node_modules/pskill9-website-downloader if installed globally, or within the project node_modules). Look for the download_website function definition and examine how the outputPath parameter is usedAffected if The outputPath argument is directly interpolated into a shell command (such as using backticks, exec, or spawn with shell: true) without sanitization or validation
-
Confirm user-controllable input reaches the vulnerable functionTrace how the download_website function is invoked in your application. Determine whether the outputPath argument originates from user input, API parameters, or external sources without passing through input validationAffected if User-supplied or untrusted data can be passed as the outputPath argument to download_website without validation
You are affected if pskill9-website-downloader version 0.1.0 or earlier is installed AND your application passes user-controlled input to the outputPath parameter of the download_website function.
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 sanitization on the outputPath parameter, avoiding direct use of user-controlled input in shell commands. Use parameterized APIs or whitelist validation for file paths.
- 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-2026-7642 — 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-2026-7642 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