Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-7785 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 32% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; in the Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
A security flaw has been discovered in A-G-U-P-T-A wireshark-mcp at commit edaf604416fbc94a201b4043092d4a1b09a12275/400c3da70074f22f3cce7ccb65304cafc7089c89. The issue resides in the quick_capture function of pyshark_mcp.py and stems from improper handling of input that permits OS command injection, tracked under CWE-77 and CWE-78. The product follows a rolling release model with no discrete version identifiers for affected or fixed builds.
Remote attackers can trigger the flaw without authentication or user interaction, executing arbitrary operating system commands and obtaining limited effects on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The CVSS 4.0 score of 5.5 reflects network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction. A public exploit has already been disclosed.
The GitHub repository, associated issue report, and Vuldb entries document the problem but contain no mitigation guidance or patch references. The maintainer was notified via the issue tracker yet has not responded.
EPSS remains low and essentially flat at 0.0212 currently with a peak of 0.0218, indicating limited observed exploitation interest to date.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-27159
Vulnerability Data
A security flaw has been discovered in A-G-U-P-T-A wireshark-mcp edaf604416fbc94a201b4043092d4a1b09a12275/400c3da70074f22f3cce7ccb65304cafc7089c89. This affects the function quick_capture of the file pyshark_mcp.py. The manipulation results in os command injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public…
more
and may be used for attacks. This product operates on a rolling release basis, ensuring continuous delivery. Consequently, there are no version details for either affected or updated releases. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Supply Chain and Deployment
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: mcp
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.