ai.mcpcap/mcpcap
version 0.10.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/mcpcap/mcpcap
- transport stdio
- files read 16
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
95
100measured on 65% of this axis
71
64measured on 90% of this axis
58
The evidence
Every deduction below names the artefact that produced it. Nothing on this page was executed: the source was read, never run, and no running server was contacted.
Code Safety
- src/mcpcap/modules/base.py:139mcp-python-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound HTTP request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part of it is caller-supplied, the server can be steered at internal hosts — cloud metadata endpoints, admin ports, other tenants.
try: with requests.get(pcap_url, timeout=60, stream=True) as response: response.raise_for_status()
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
stdio transport: the client launches the server as a subprocess, so the OS process boundary is the auth boundary — `03` §4 does not penalise absent auth here
- transport_security
declared transport: stdio — launched as a subprocess by the client, so the security boundary is the client process, not a network port (`03` §4)
- secret_handling
detect-secrets matched 2 credential-shaped string(s), every one from a keyword or entropy heuristic (Secret Keyword). Those flag placeholders, variable names and content hashes as readily as credentials, so they do not establish the committed credential `03` §4's 0 asserts, and this sub-check is not scored; Secret Keyword at DEPENDENCIES.md:26; Secret Keyword at tests/test_cli.py:185
- authorization_granularity
no tool registration was recognised anywhere in the source. An MCP server registers tools by definition, so this is a gap in our detection rather than a server with none, and `03` §4's threshold cannot be applied to it.
Dependency Health
- uv.lockurllib3 2.7.0 — PYSEC-2026-4177
transitive, CVSS 8.9, fixed in 2.8.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4177 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.14.0 — PYSEC-2026-4183
transitive, CVSS 8.2, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4183 - uv.lockvirtualenv 21.2.0 — PYSEC-2026-4013
transitive, CVSS 7.8, fixed in 21.7.13
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4013 - uv.lockvirtualenv 21.2.0 — PYSEC-2026-4011
transitive, CVSS 7.7, fixed in 21.7.12
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4011 - uv.lockurllib3 2.7.0 — PYSEC-2026-4175
transitive, CVSS 7.6, fixed in 2.8.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4175 - uv.lockmcp 1.28.1 — GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 1.30.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv - uv.lockvirtualenv 21.2.0 — PYSEC-2026-4014
transitive, CVSS 7.3, fixed in 21.7.12
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4014 - uv.lockurllib3 2.7.0 — PYSEC-2026-4176
transitive, CVSS 6.9, fixed in 2.8.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4176 - uv.lockvirtualenv 21.2.0 — PYSEC-2026-4012
transitive, CVSS 5.8, fixed in 21.7.11
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4012 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.14.0 — PYSEC-2026-4141
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4141
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 16 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
lifetime median (1 issue(s) in the last 6 months, under `03` §5's floor of 3): 120.8 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
released 16 day(s) ago (by releases), inside `03` §5's 30-day window
- bus_factor
sole maintainer
- repository_signals
`03` §5 scores this by quartile WITHIN the server's category, which needs a distribution across every scanned server and so cannot be computed while scanning one. It is a post-pass over the crawl and that pass does not exist yet.
Transparency
- license
LICENSE present with no SPDX-License-Identifier tag; identified as 'MIT' from its text
- readme_quality
README.md: installation instructions (+25), configuration documented (+25), exposed tools or resources enumerated (+30), states what the server does in the first 200 words (+20)
- declared_scopes
neither the README nor the MCP manifest documents what the server accesses or what side effects it has
- changelog
enhancement/CHANGELOG.md present
- security_contact
no SECURITY.md and no disclosure contact in the README, so a finder has no route to report a vulnerability privately
Contest a finding
Every number here comes from a rule reading published source, and rules get things wrong. If something on this page is incorrect — or correct but mitigated by a check the rule cannot see — open an issue and we answer it in writing. A finding we got wrong is removed and the rule is fixed; one that stands is answered on the record.
Anyone can file: the maintainer, a researcher who disagrees with the classification, or a user who tested the server and could not reproduce it. Name this server and the rule or advisory ID shown beside the finding above. We aim to reply within five business days and to resolve within ten.