VulnerabilityPublished 15 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-4192: AvinashBole quip-mcp-server · Command Injection

Affects AvinashBole quip-mcp-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 1.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 73% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
AvinashBolequip-mcp-server	Affected =1.0.0	Fixed in–
GitHubavinashbole/quip-mcp-server`pkg:github/avinashbole/quip-mcp-server`Other threats	Affected =1.0.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to the quip-mcp-server instance, limiting exposure to trusted internal networks only.
Disable or remove the setupToolHandlers functionality if feasible until a patch is available.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all inputs handled by the setupToolHandlers function to prevent command injection.
Monitor server logs and network traffic for unusual command execution patterns or unexpected outbound connections.
Employ application-layer firewalls or intrusion detection/prevention systems to detect and block exploitation attempts targeting this vulnerability.
If possible, run the quip-mcp-server with the least privileges necessary to limit the impact of a successful exploit.
Engage with the vendor or community to obtain updates or patches as soon as they become available.
Consider isolating the vulnerable server in a segmented network zone to reduce lateral movement risk.
Conduct a thorough security review of all custom handlers or plugins that may be similarly vulnerable.
Prepare incident response plans to quickly address potential exploitation events related to this vulnerability.

Description

CVE-2026-4192 is a command injection vulnerability found in version 1.0.0 of AvinashBole's quip-mcp-server, specifically in the setupToolHandlers function within src/index.ts. This flaw allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the affected server without requiring user interaction or elevated privileges beyond low-level privileges. The vulnerability has been publicly disclosed, but no patch or vendor response is currently available. The CVSS 4.0 base score is 5.3, indicating a medium severity level. Exploitation could lead to partial compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the server.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-4192 is unauthorized remote command execution on affected quip-mcp-server instances. This can lead to partial compromise of the server's confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Attackers could execute arbitrary commands to manipulate data, disrupt services, or pivot to other systems within the network. Although the vulnerability requires only low privileges and no user interaction, the scope of impact depends on the deployment context and the privileges of the quip-mcp-server process. Organizations relying on this software for critical operations may face service disruptions, data breaches, or unauthorized access. The lack of a vendor patch increases exposure time, and public exploit disclosure raises the likelihood of exploitation attempts. The impact is particularly significant for environments where the server is exposed to untrusted networks or the internet. However, since the vulnerability affects a specific product with presumably limited market penetration, the global impact is moderate but still concerning for affected users.

Summary

CVE-2026-4192 is a medium-severity command injection vulnerability affecting AvinashBole's quip-mcp-server version 1.0.0. The vulnerability resides in the setupToolHandlers function of the src/index.ts file, where insufficient input sanitization allows an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary system commands remotely. The attack vector is network-based (AV:N), requires low privileges (PR:L), and no user interaction (UI:N), making it relatively easy to exploit in environments where the vulnerable service is exposed. The vulnerability impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability to a limited extent (VC:L, VI:L, VA:L), as the attacker can execute commands but may be constrained by the privileges of the service. The vendor has been notified but has not yet issued a patch or mitigation guidance. The public disclosure of the exploit details increases the risk of exploitation by threat actors. The vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction, which broadens the attack surface. The quip-mcp-server is a specialized server product, and its deployment footprint is likely limited to organizations using this specific tool, which may include software development or management platforms. The lack of a patch and the presence of a public exploit necessitate immediate defensive actions by users of this software.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…