dev.vantagemcp/vantage
version 1.9.1
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/vantagemcp/vantage-mcp
- commit 122e45dd62ca
- transport streamable-http
- files read 9
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
87
80measured on 25% of this axis
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source; dependency versions are unresolved, so no vulnerability can be attributed
88measured on 65% of this axis
73
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/vantage_mcp/store.py:50mcp-python-sql-string-built (medium/medium)
A SQL statement is assembled by string building rather than passed as a parameterised query. Every driver here accepts parameters as a second argument; building the string is never necessary.
): if column not in existing: conn.execute(f"ALTER TABLE api_keys ADD COLUMN {column} {ddl_type}") - src/vantage_mcp/store.py:459mcp-python-sql-string-built (medium/medium)
A SQL statement is assembled by string building rather than passed as a parameterised query. Every driver here accepts parameters as a second argument; building the string is never necessary.
).fetchone() conn.execute("DELETE FROM checks WHERE client_id = ? AND checked_at < ?", (client_id, cutoff)) conn.execute( f"INSERT INTO checks (client_id, {', '.join(_CHECK_COLS)}) VALUES (?{', ?' * len(_CHECK_COLS)})", (client_id, domain, keyword, engine, country, language, samples, cited_runs, - src/vantage_mcp/store.py:486mcp-python-sql-string-built (medium/medium)
A SQL statement is assembled by string building rather than passed as a parameterised query. Every driver here accepts parameters as a second argument; building the string is never necessary.
account page).""" with closing(_connect()) as conn: rows = conn.execute( f"SELECT {', '.join(_CHECK_COLS)} FROM checks WHERE client_id = ? ORDER BY checked_at DESC LIMIT ?", (client_id, limit)).fetchall() - src/vantage_mcp/dataforseo_client.py:89mcp-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 urllib.request.urlopen(req, timeout=timeout) as r: return json.load(r) except urllib.error.HTTPError as e: - src/vantage_mcp/dataforseo_client.py:104mcp-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 urllib.request.urlopen(req, timeout=20) as r: d = json.load(r) return float(d["tasks"][0]["result"][0]["money"]["balance"])
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
no authentication appears in the source we fetched, but this server's network endpoint is a hosted remote, whose authentication can be enforced in front of its code — and no credential header is declared. An undeclared header is not an absent one, so `03` §4's "no authentication" band is not established.
- transport_security
declared endpoint(s) are HTTPS: https://vantagemcp.dev/mcp; scored 80, not 100: `03` §4 reserves 100 for HTTPS *with HSTS*, and an HSTS header can only be seen by connecting, which `04` §9 does not do. This is an unverifiable band, not an observed absence.
- 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 README.md:42; Secret Keyword at npm/README.md:29
- authorization_granularity
10 tool registrations and no conditional access logic found — `03` §4 calls this case 'needs human review' and assigns it no score band, so it is not scored here
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 2 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
this repository has no issues `03` §5's window covers. An unanswered issue scores 0 under §5, but a repository with no issues filed has not failed to answer one.
- release_cadence
released 2 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
CHANGELOG.md present
- security_contact
SECURITY.md present
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.