CVE-2026-115477

HIGHPre-NVD 7.17.1
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This high-severity CVE scores 7.1 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.4% (29th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 3 sources updated this weekElevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-109082 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-737x-cwfr-5vvc (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.1EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 7.1Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

obsidian-tc is a governed, agent-ready Model Context Protocol server for Obsidian vaults. From 1.13.0 until 1.31.4, on a Streamable HTTP deployment with auth.jwtSecret configured and a 2026-07-28-era client declaring elicitation.form support, a dispatch-gated tool call offered an inputRequired confirmation could still complete after the human declined or cancelled, or the elicitation response was omitted or malformed, provided the client echoed the validly bound requestState on resubmission. The server trusted an authentic, call-bound state as proof of approval even though that state was minted before the elicitation/create leg was asked and proved only that the resubmission belonged to the same call. A client behaving incorrectly or under an attacker's control could therefore execute dispatch-gated destructive vault operations without the human's approval, while still requiring the caller's ordinary tool permissions. Only tools marked destructive: true or requiring a scope with a human-in-the-loop floor were reachable through this bypass. The sixteen handler-side conditionally gated tools, including write_note overwrite and move_note, did not read elicitation state on the modern wire and let neither approval nor decline through that path. Affected deployments using stdio or leaving auth.jwtSecret unset instead used the CLI elicit_token fallback and did not offer this requestState round trip. The fix does not prevent a malicious client from reporting a fabricated approval, because the server cannot verify that the client displayed the form or that a human saw it. This issue is fixed in version 1.31.4.

CVSS v3
7.1
EG Score
7.1HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
48
EG Risk 48/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity71% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.1 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.4%
EPSS %ILE
29th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 23, 2026

Last Modified

October 29, 2026

Advisory Details (6)

Auto-updated Oct 23, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github, github_pr, github_commit, github_release.
GitHub release Patch Available

v1.31.4

Patch available: The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc v1.31.4

https://github.com/The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc/releases/tag/v1.31.4
Web page

obsidian-tc/CHANGELOG.md at v1.31.4 · The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc · GitHub

https://github.com/The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc/blob/v1.31.4/CHANGELOG.md
GitHub commit

commit 101c91c656e2 (The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc)

Fix landed in The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc commit 101c91c656e2 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc/commit/101c91c656e2c2b88bcf3696a5da035f8c032c71
GitHub pull request

hitl: in-band elicitation on stdio, directive elicit_required text

Fix merged in The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc PR #969 on 2026-09-25 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc/pull/969
Web page

HITL on stdio: offer the existing form-elicitation prompt, and add opt-in operator pre-authorization for unattended runs · Issue #967 · The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc · GitHub

https://github.com/The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc/issues/967
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

A declined or cancelled human-in-the-loop confirmation could still complete the destructive call over HTTP · Advisory · The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc · GitHub

Affected: 1.31.4: the server now also requires the confirm leg's own response (

https://github.com/The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc/security/advisories/GHSA-737x-cwfr-5vvc

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-115477(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
npmobsidian-tc @ 1.31.4 (fixes >= 1.13.0, <= 1.31.3)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
npm(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
obsidian-tc—
  • 1.13.0 up to 1.31.4: fixed in 1.31.4
—

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 12× in last 7d / 18× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-737x-cwfr-5vvc · GitHub severity HIGH
  3. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-31 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  5. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  6. 2026-10-29 18:27 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-29 17:58 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  9. 2026-10-28 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  10. 2026-10-27 20:44 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  12. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  13. 2026-10-25 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  14. 2026-10-25 14:50 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-24 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
  16. 2026-10-23 15:28 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-23 14:30 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.1 HIGH
  18. 2026-10-23 14:29 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same product + same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-115477?
CVE-2026-115477 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 23, 2026. obsidian-tc is a governed, agent-ready Model Context Protocol server for Obsidian vaults. From 1.13.0 until 1.31.4, on a Streamable HTTP deployment with auth.jwtSecret configured and a 2026-07-28-era client declaring elicitation.form support, a dispatch-gated tool call offered an inputRequired…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-115477 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-115477 was published on October 23, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 29, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-115477 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-115477 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (29th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-115477?
CVE-2026-115477 has a CVSS base score of 7.1 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-115477?
A fix for CVE-2026-115477 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-115477 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-115477

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-115477?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs