What is CVE-2026-19751?

CVE-2026-19751 is EnzoVezzaro mcp-dominican-layer parse-csv tool index.ts axios.get server-side request forgery. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as SSRF mapped to CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-19751 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

4 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, cloud metadata access logs, egress proxy logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-19751 using CVSS 6.3, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

mediumSSRFpublic exploit

CVE-2026-19751

EnzoVezzaro mcp-dominican-layer parse-csv tool index.ts axios.get server-side request forgery

A flaw has been found in EnzoVezzaro mcp-dominican-layer up to 39dd373786712650097ad31db27d5c477c8f9c82. The affected element is the function axios.get of the file src/index.ts of the component parse-csv tool. This manipulation of the argument csvUrl causes server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Published Aug 13, 2026Updated Aug 13, 2026Sources: NVD, EnzoVezzaro (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

EnzoVezzaro

mcp-dominican-layer

CVSS base

6.3

medium · 6 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade mcp-dominican-layer to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
EnzoVezzaro	mcp-dominican-layer	39dd373786712650097ad31db27d5c477c8f9c82	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

Low

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

Low

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
6.3	CVSS 3.1	medium	2.8	3.4	NVD
6.5	CVSS 2.0	medium	8	6.4	vuldb.com (CNA)
5.3	CVSS 4.0	medium	—	—	EnzoVezzaro (CNA)
6.3	CVSS 3.1	medium	—	—	EnzoVezzaro (CNA)
6.3	CVSS 3.0	medium	—	—	EnzoVezzaro (CNA)
6.5	CVSS 2.0	medium	—	—	EnzoVezzaro (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Read Application Data
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands::

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-664 · Server Side Request Forgery

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1 of the 4 sampled are weaponized

Detection

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

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /index.ts.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable mcp-dominican-layer.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 4 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPScloud metadata access logsegress proxy logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 6.3 (AV:N)
Aug 13, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 13, 2026 · NVD
Reported · Advisory disclosed
Aug 13, 2026 · EnzoVezzaro
Reported · VulDB entry created
Aug 13, 2026 · EnzoVezzaro
Reported · VulDB entry last update
Aug 13, 2026 · EnzoVezzaro
CVE published by mitre
Aug 13, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

6 on the record

github.com/EnzoVezzaro/mcp-dominican-layer/
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/EnzoVezzaro/mcp-dominican-layer/issues/2
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-19751
Vendor Advisory
vuldb.com/submit/868925
Vendor Advisory
vuldb.com/vuln/389528
Vendor Advisory
vuldb.com/vuln/389528/cti
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

EnzoVezzaroevery CVE for this vendor
SSRFsame class
CWE-918other pages naming this weakness

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 record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-19751 is EnzoVezzaro mcp-dominican-layer parse-csv tool index.ts axios.get server-side request forgery, a medium vulnerability affecting mcp-dominican-layer from EnzoVezzaro. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 4 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 6.3 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.