com.vulnrable/vulnrable
REMOTE · VULNRABLE.COM
Security grades for MCP servers and npm/PyPI packages, ranked by CISA KEV and EPSS.
Available components
Last scanned (15 hours ago)
Scores higher than 62% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Security
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security57
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 4 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability74
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 392 tokens (~98/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management93
- Stability observed for 28 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage83
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 50% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Checks we ran (12)
- TLS certificate
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (1)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this hosted endpoint. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Authorization in Endpoint SecurityAuthorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 4 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe.
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://vulnrable.com/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=vulnrable.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 9 Sept 2026 | 8 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | dc580365adf9234b0e825ecfeec474fb |
| SANs: vulnrable.com | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of vulnrable.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| vulnrable.com. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://vulnrable.com/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://vulnrable.com/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://vulnrable.com/api/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
check_cve ~73
Details for one CVE or GHSA identifier, including whether CISA lists it as actively exploited (KEV) and its EPSS exploitation probability. Use to judge real-world urgency.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | yes | e.g. CVE-2024-3094 or GHSA-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_package ~70
Security assessment of one npm or PyPI package: letter grade, findings, known vulnerabilities, deprecation status, and — for MCP servers in our directory — the real resolved dependency count. Use before recommending or installing a package.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecosystem | string | yes | – |
| name | string | yes | Exact package name |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
latest_vulns ~62
Recently published vulnerabilities from the tracked pool, ranked KEV-first then by EPSS. Use for "what should I worry about this week".
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| kev_only | boolean | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| min_severity | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_mcp_servers ~90
The MCP server directory with real resolved dependency counts. Use when recommending an MCP server, or to compare how much third-party code candidates pull into the agent. For a graded security assessment of one server, call check_package.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort_by | string | – | total_packages sorts heaviest first |
| understates_only | boolean | – | Only servers whose count understates real surface (mostly prebuilt binaries) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the com.vulnrable/vulnrable MCP server?
com.vulnrable/vulnrable is a hosted endpoint at https://vulnrable.com/api/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · vulnrable.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-vulnrable-vulnrable 'https://vulnrable.com/api/mcp'
What is the com.vulnrable/vulnrable MCP server?
com.vulnrable/vulnrable is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.vulnrable/vulnrable. Security grades for MCP servers and npm/PyPI packages, ranked by CISA KEV and EPSS. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://vulnrable.com/api/mcp).
Is the com.vulnrable/vulnrable MCP server safe to use?
com.vulnrable/vulnrable scores 74 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the com.vulnrable/vulnrable MCP server expose?
com.vulnrable/vulnrable exposes 4 tools: check_package, list_mcp_servers, check_cve, latest_vulns. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 295 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the com.vulnrable/vulnrable MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to com.vulnrable/vulnrable without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the com.vulnrable/vulnrable MCP server still maintained?
com.vulnrable/vulnrable is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What did VerifyMCP test on the com.vulnrable/vulnrable MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on com.vulnrable/vulnrable, covering TLS certificate, HTTPS, HSTS header, DNSSEC and 8 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about com.vulnrable/vulnrable: Authorization. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.