Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

REC in MCPJam inspector due to HTTP Endpoint exposes

Not in CISA KEVMetasploit moduleCVE-2026-23744CWE-306

Not confirmed exploited. 2 of 8 rule sources name it; Cloudflare blocks by default. Our CRS test: not blocked.

Edge rules
2/8
Our test
Not blocked
CVSS
9.8
EPSS
67.5% Top 0.7%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2026-01-16
MCPJam inspector is the local-first development platform for MCP servers. Versions 1.4.2 and earlier are vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability, which allows an attacker to send a crafted HTTP request that triggers the… More

MCPJam inspector is the local-first development platform for MCP servers. Versions 1.4.2 and earlier are vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability, which allows an attacker to send a crafted HTTP request that triggers the installation of an MCP server, leading to RCE. Since MCPJam inspector by default listens on 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1, an attacker can trigger the RCE remotely via a simple HTTP request. Version 1.4.3 contains a patch.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-23744: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
Critical · 9.8 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

3 found
1 Metasploit1 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2026-01-16
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-01-16
    Metasploit module published
    MCPJam Inspector Connect API Command Execution
  3. 2026-04-07
    Cloudflare ships a rule
    MCP Server - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2026-23744
  4. 2026-07-07
    Exploit published on Exploit-DB
    MCPJam Inspector - Remote Code Execution
  5. 2026-07-07
    F5 ships a rule
    MCPJam Inspector Remote Code Execution
  6. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  7. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed Rules1 quoteBlocks by default

First rule 2026-04-07, 81 days after the CVE was published.

2026-04-07New rule…d46229ebDefault: BlockSource
MCP Server - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2026-23744. Previous action: Log. New action: Block. This is a new detection.
AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-07-07, 172 days after the CVE was published.

2026-07-07New rule200103681Source
Added: signature 200103681 "MCPJam Inspector Remote Code Execution" (Command Execution, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-23744.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.