What is CVE-2026-55887?

CVE-2026-55887 is MCP Gateway: Argument injection via OCI image label YAML in Docker MCP Gateway. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-88 CWE-88.

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?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-55887. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-55887 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?

2 public PoC repositories reported; 0 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 EDR process telemetry, host service 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-2026-55887 using CVSS 8.7, 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.

highRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2026-55887

CVE-2026-55887 — MCP Gateway: Argument injection via OCI image label YAML in Docker MCP Gateway

MCP Gateway allows easy and secure running and deployment of MCP servers. From 0.21.0 until 0.42.2, Docker MCP Gateway YAML-unmarshalled the attacker-controlled io.docker.server.metadata OCI image label into the broad catalog.Server structure for direct docker:// references and catalog snapshot imports in pkg/oci/self_contained.go and pkg/workingset/workingset.go. Runtime-shaping fields including Volumes, User, and ExtraHosts were then appended to the docker run argument vector without an origin allowlist, allowing a malicious image author to request host filesystem or Docker socket mounts and UID 0 execution when a victim selected or pulled the image. This container-creation-time boundary bypass can execute arbitrary code on the host and is not prevented by no-new-privileges because no in-container privilege escalation is required. This issue is fixed in version 0.42.2.

Published Sep 15, 2026Updated Sep 15, 2026Sources: NVD, docker (CNA), GitHub

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

docker

mcp-gateway

CVSS base

8.7

high

CISA SSVC assessment

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

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade mcp-gateway 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
docker	mcp-gateway	>= 0.21.0, < 0.42.2	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

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
8.7	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	docker (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-88

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

CAPEC-242 · Code InjectionCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

Public exploit

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

Repositories

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 //, /oci/self_contained.go, /workingset/workingset.go.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 2 public PoC repositories were reported.

EDR process telemetryhost service 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 8.7 (AV:L)
Sep 15, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 15, 2026 · NVD

References

5 on the record

github.com/docker/mcp-gateway/commit/306d2d94a3b526f43281313321bf784f2d46a7fe
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/docker/mcp-gateway/commit/439b2200d9e26a4ff414aeb043785df45a78422b
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/docker/mcp-gateway/pull/498
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/docker/mcp-gateway/releases/tag/v0.42.2
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/docker/mcp-gateway/security/advisories/GHSA-r2xf-7jw5-pjg6
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

dockerevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-88other 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-2026-55887 is MCP Gateway: Argument injection via OCI image label YAML in Docker MCP Gateway, a high vulnerability affecting mcp-gateway from docker. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-55887. Public exploit evidence is: 2 public PoC repositories reported; 0 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 8.7 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.