CVE-2026-82456
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-82456 is a critical-severity Binding to an Unrestricted IP Address (CWE-1327) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 29% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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 CM-6 (Configuration Settings) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-68103
Vulnerability Data
argocd-mcp 0.8.0 binds its HTTP transport to every network interface and accepts MCP sessions without requiring caller credentials when ARGOCD_API_TOKEN is configured. Attackers who can reach the listener can invoke the full tool surface using the operator's stored token to…
more
create applications, request syncs, and modify Argo CD resources.
- 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, mcp
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Establishes the most restrictive configuration settings, which would require binding only to specific addresses rather than 0.0.0.0.
Enforces approved information flow policies that would disallow unrestricted remote bindings.
Enforces least functionality by prohibiting unnecessary network exposure such as unrestricted listening addresses.
Requires control of communications at external and key internal interfaces, preventing binding that accepts traffic from any source.
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.
Documenting authorized network flows informs correct bind decisions and reduces the chance of 0.0.0.0 usage.
Network protection controls directly prevent exposure via unrestricted binds while fixing the weakness addresses only one vector of unauthorized access.
Configuration management enforces restricted bind addresses, covering the weakness completely but only one aspect of overall hardening.
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.
Network security controls directly require restricting listening interfaces to specific addresses rather than 0.0.0.0.
Security of network services includes hardening service bindings to prevent exposure on all interfaces.
Network segregation can limit the blast radius of an unrestricted binding but does not prevent the binding itself.
Secure architecture principles discourage exposing services on all interfaces, though the control is broader than this single weakness.
Secure coding guidance can catch hard-coded 0.0.0.0 bindings during development but is not the primary mitigation.