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-2026-7812 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) 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 31% 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 Protocol-Specific Risks 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 command injection vulnerability affects the git_operation function in the MCP Tool component of 54yyyu code-mcp up to commit 4cfc4643541a110c906d93635b391bf7e357f4a8. The flaw resides in src/code_mcp/server.py and stems from unsanitized handling of the operation argument, enabling arbitrary command execution. The product follows a continuous delivery model with rolling releases, so no specific affected or fixed versions are identified. The issue was reported via a public GitHub issue but has received no response from maintainers.
Remote attackers can exploit the vulnerability without authentication or user interaction by supplying a crafted operation argument, resulting in command injection with limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Public exploit code is available, and the weakness maps to CWE-74 and CWE-77.
The referenced GitHub repository and Vuldb entries provide no mitigation guidance or patches. The associated EPSS score has remained essentially flat between 0.0212 and a peak of 0.0218.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-27217
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in 54yyyu code-mcp up to 4cfc4643541a110c906d93635b391bf7e357f4a8. The impacted element is the function git_operation of the file src/code_mcp/server.py of the component MCP Tool. Performing a manipulation of the argument operation results in command injection. The attack can…
more
be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available. 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
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- 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
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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 output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.