dbcve.org
Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2026-7788

HIGH · 7.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-05
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
82/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A security flaw has been discovered in Axle-Bucamp MCP-Docusaurus up to 404bc028e15ec304c9a045528560f4b5f27a17e0. The affected element is the function update_document/continue_document/delete_document/get_content of the file app/routes/document.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument DOCS_DIR/path results in path traversal. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. 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 · moderate confidence

A path traversal vulnerability exists in MCP-Docusaurus in app/routes/document.py affecting the update_document, continue_document, delete_document, and get_content functions. These functions fail to properly validate the DOCS_DIR/path argument, allowing attackers to use traversal sequences (e.g., '../') to access files outside the intended document directory. The vulnerability is exploitable remotely with publicly available exploits and carries a CVSS score of 7.3 (HIGH).

MitigationImplement strict input validation and path sanitization for the DOCS_DIR/path argument in all affected functions. Use canonical path resolution and verify the final resolved path remains within the intended directory boundary (e.g., by comparing canonical paths or using path allowlisting).

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify MCP-Docusaurus installation
    Check for the presence of the MCP-Docusaurus package or application directory in your environment. Look for files matching the structure mentioned in the affected product (app/routes/document.py).
    Affected if MCP-Docusaurus is installed and the file app/routes/document.py exists on the system
  2. Identify installed version
    Locate the version information for your MCP-Docusaurus installation (commonly in package.json, setup.py, requirements.txt, or a VERSION file). Compare this version against the affected range provided by the vendor.
    Affected if The installed version falls within any affected version range (if known) or cannot be determined to be patched
  3. Confirm affected functions exist
    Examine the file app/routes/document.py and verify that the functions update_document, continue_document, delete_document, and get_content are present in the code.
    Affected if All four affected functions (update_document, continue_document, delete_document, get_content) exist in document.py
  4. Check DOCS_DIR configuration exposure
    Review the application configuration and runtime settings to determine if the DOCS_DIR parameter can be controlled by user input or external requests.
    Affected if The DOCS_DIR argument is user-controllable or accepts external input without validation
  5. Test for path traversal vulnerability
    If you have access to the API or function interface, attempt to pass a path containing traversal sequences (e.g., ../../etc/passwd or ../) as the path argument to any of the affected functions.
    Affected if The application allows path traversal sequences to bypass directory restrictions and access files outside the intended DOCS_DIR

A user is affected if MCP-Docusaurus is installed with the vulnerable document.py file containing the four affected functions, and the DOCS_DIR/path parameter accepts unvalidated user input that can be manipulated with traversal sequences.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation and path sanitization for the DOCS_DIR/path argument in all affected functions. Use canonical path resolution and verify the final resolved path remains within the intended directory boundary (e.g., by comparing canonical paths or using path allowlisting).

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,640
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7788 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-7788 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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