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.
CVE-2026-115477
This high-severity CVE scores 7.1 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit-prediction score not yet available (the EPSS model rescores nightly; freshly-published CVEs typically appear within 48 hours). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
A fix is available — apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 7.1
- EG Score
- 7.1HIGHlow confidence
- EG Risk
- 32EG Risk 32/100
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.Exploitation0% × 40%No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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
- —
- EPSS %ILE
- —
- 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
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- 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: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: 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 none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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 23, 2026
Advisory Details (6)
Auto-updated Oct 23, 2026v1.31.4
Patch available: The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc v1.31.4
https://github.com/The-40-Thieves/obsidian-tc/releases/tag/v1.31.4obsidian-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.mdcommit 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/101c91c656e2c2b88bcf3696a5da035f8c032c71hitl: 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/969HITL 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/967A 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-5vvcVendor 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.
Weakness Classification(2)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× 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.
- 2026-10-23 15:28 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-23 14:30 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.1 HIGH
- 2026-10-23 14:29 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Frequently asked(4)
What is CVE-2026-115477?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-115477 published?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-115477?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-115477?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-115477
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-115477?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.