VulnerabilityPublished 14 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-39884: Flux159 mcp-server-kubernetes · Argument Injection

Affects Flux159 mcp-server-kubernetesSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High : upgrade to 3.5.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.3High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.5.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade mcp-server-kubernetes and flux159/mcp-server-kubernetes to 3.5.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Flux159mcp-server-kubernetes	Affected <3.5.0	Fixed in 3.5.0
GitHubflux159/mcp-server-kubernetes`pkg:github/flux159/mcp-server-kubernetes`Other threats	Affected <3.5.0	Fixed in 3.5.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

A fix for this vulnerability is available in mcp-server-kubernetes version 3.5.0. Users should upgrade to version 3.5.0 or later to remediate this issue. Patch status is not explicitly stated beyond the fix in 3.5.0, so users should refer to the vendor's official release notes or advisories for confirmation and detailed upgrade instructions.

Description

mcp-server-kubernetes is a Model Context Protocol server for Kubernetes cluster management. Versions 3.4.0 and prior contain an argument injection vulnerability in the port_forward tool in src/tools/port_forward.ts, where a kubectl command is constructed via string concatenation with user-controlled input and then naively split on spaces before being passed to spawn(). Unlike all other tools in the codebase which correctly use array-based argument passing with execFileSync(), port_forward treats every space in user-controlled fields (namespace, resourceType, resourceName, localPort, targetPort) as an argument boundary, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary kubectl flags. This enables exposure of internal Kubernetes services to the network by injecting --address=0.0.0.0, cross-namespace targeting by injecting additional -n flags, and indirect exploitation via prompt injection against AI agents connected to the MCP server. This issue has been fixed in version 3.5.0.

Impact

Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized exposure of internal Kubernetes services to the network by injecting flags like --address=0.0.0.0, unauthorized cross-namespace access by injecting additional -n flags, and indirect exploitation through prompt injection against AI agents connected to the MCP server. The CVSS v3.1 score is 8.3 (high), indicating high confidentiality and integrity impact with low attack complexity and no user interaction required.

Summary

The vulnerability arises from improper neutralization of argument delimiters (CWE-88) in the port_forward tool of mcp-server-kubernetes. Specifically, user input fields such as namespace, resourceType, resourceName, localPort, and targetPort are concatenated into a command string and split on spaces before being passed to spawn(), unlike other tools that use array-based argument passing with execFileSync(). This flawed handling allows attackers to inject additional kubectl flags, enabling unauthorized exposure of internal services, cross-namespace targeting, and potential prompt injection attacks on AI agents. The vulnerability affects versions 3.4.0 and earlier and was addressed in version 3.5.0.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command (Argument Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Apr 2026, 06:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats