CVE Intelligence
High Access control

CVE-2026-115477 — obsidian-tc: Declined human-in-the-loop confirmations can permit destructive calls over HTTP

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.

Published Oct 23, 2026 · Updated Oct 29, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+4
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.35%
ahead of 29% of scored CVEs · Oct 30, 2026
Affects
The-40-Thieves
Obsidian-tc
CVSS base
7.1
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Npm Obsidian-tc: fixed in version 1.31.4 — github.com (GitHub Security Advisories)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (The-40-Thieves Obsidian-tc, Npm Obsidian-tc).
  2. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (access control), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
The-40-Thieves Obsidian-tc version >= 1.13.0, < 1.31.4 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Npm Obsidian-tc ≥ 1.13.0 and ≤ 1.31.3 Vulnerable GitHub Security Advisories

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.1 CVSS 4.0 High — — security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.1 CVSS 4.0 High — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-285 · Improper Authorization

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 24, 2026 → Oct 30, 2026 · 7 reading(s) · max 0.50%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Audit administrative actions and access to resources outside each user’s normal pattern.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSauthentication logsapplication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 29, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisories
  • Affected products added · npm/obsidian-tc
    Oct 29, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisories
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 29, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Affected products added · the-40-thieves/obsidian-tc
    Oct 23, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 23, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 7.1
    Oct 23, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 23, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 23, 2026 · Alertas do Telegram
  • CVE published
    Oct 23, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 2× References added · Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 29, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 23, 2026

References

8 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

The-40-Thieves
every CVE for this vendor
Access control
same class
CWE-285
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-115478 obsidian-tc: Memory-lifecycle tools overwrite unowned notes or partially commit lifecycle changes 7d
  • CVE-2026-77361 obsidian-tc symlink path mismatch bypasses read ACL restrictions 17d
  • CVE-2026-77362 obsidian-tc bridge tools expose data outside the read ACL 17d
  • CVE-2026-77363 obsidian-tc Streamable HTTP transport permits cross-origin loopback vault access 18d
  • CVE-2026-77366 obsidian-tc tokens can access arbitrary configured vaults 18d
  • CVE-2026-77364 obsidian-tc fail-open default ACL exposes Obsidian control-directory secrets 18d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-115477 is "obsidian-tc: Declined human-in-the-loop confirmations can permit destructive calls over HTTP", rated High. It affects Obsidian-tc (The-40-Thieves); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.35% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.