Keep Me Secure
OCI · GHCR.IO/ROBERTKEUS/KEEP-ME-SECURE-MCP · 2 COMPONENTS
Tells your coding agent whether your installed packages need patching, with advice on what to do.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 38% of OCI servers
Category Security
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached, which nothing verifies, so we will not report it as a clean result. View diagnostics → Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached. It names packages and versions but not whether each is deprecated, still maintained or linked to its source, so there is nothing we can fairly grade.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency35
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- License check failed: no license is declared. See how to fix → Fail
- Actively maintained (last published 0 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability73
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 494 tokens (~164/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability observed for 0 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Unverified
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Unverified: 2 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (11)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (5)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached, which nothing verifies, so we will not report it as a clean result.
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached. It names packages and versions but not whether each is deprecated, still maintained or linked to its source, so there is nothing we can fairly grade.
- Stability in Stability & Change Management (scores 0 for this)Stability observed for 0 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
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.
- 5 Nov 26 38
First indexed and scored.
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 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/robertkeus/keep-me-secure-mcp@v1.4.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 19 ungraded findings
From the publisher's SBOM, not graded. These advisories match packages listed in the SBOM the publisher attached to this image. A publisher naming a vulnerable package in their own image is credible, so we show them. Nothing verifies that SBOM, though, so the Known CVEs signal does not grade the image from it.
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p | CVE-2026-102276 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-q2hr-2g5m-vwhr | CVE-2026-102277 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-qhr7-859c-m2p7 | CVE-2026-102278 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4 | CVE-2026-118773 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-2vr4-cq9g-pvrc | CVE-2026-101910 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-h3mg-xc3c-68pw | CVE-2026-101911 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-j6r3-76f7-8jcv | CVE-2026-101912 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-rpw4-54j3-4h4q | CVE-2026-101913 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-rxp7-6hxx-x8q5 | CVE-2026-111997 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249 | CVE-2026-118764 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-rj75-hqrm-r3gf | CVE-2026-104844 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx | CVE-2026-109383 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-3wwx-pv8p-q78v | CVE-2026-85024 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-4qv8-2p9j-2685 | CVE-2026-109924 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-9fm3-97px-rjf6 | CVE-2026-109932 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-qrxm-fqhp-jwvm | CVE-2026-87018 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-r53p-7pc4-xj5r | CVE-2026-18540 | low | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-rfgv-xxqx-mfg5 | CVE-2026-19534 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-xjj6-f33q-929c | CVE-2026-109869 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
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_package Is this package version safe? ~77
Checks one exact package version against public security advisories.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecosystem | string | yes | php, npm, python, go, rust, ruby, java or dotnet |
| name | string | yes | Package name, such as guzzlehttp/guzzle |
| version | string | yes | Exact version, such as 7.4.0 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_platform Has this platform been breached? ~83
Lists known security incidents at hosting, deployment and AI platforms, with what to do and a link to the source. Use when the user asks about a platform or breach. Omit name to list all. The list is curated and not complete, so no result doesn't mean a platform is safe.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | string | – | Platform name, such as railway or vercel |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_project Is my stack secure? ~198
Use for questions like 'is my stack secure?', 'do I need to patch anything?' or 'do we have vulnerable packages?'. Checks every installed package, including transitive ones, in all lockfiles in this project against public security advisories. verdict is yes, no or unknown; unknown means the check was incomplete, so never report it as safe. Supports PHP, JavaScript, Python, Go, Rust, Ruby, Java (Gradle lockfiles) and .NET. Does not cover language runtimes, OS packages or Docker base images.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecosystem | string | – | Only to limit the check: php, npm, python, go, rust, ruby, java or dotnet. Omit for a full check. |
| path | string | – | Subfolder relative to the project root. Omit to scan the whole project. Test and example folders are skipped unless named here. |
| refresh | boolean | – | Ignore today's cached result |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Keep Me Secure MCP server?
Keep Me Secure runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/robertkeus/keep-me-secure-mcp:v1.4.0, plus the required -v, which you supply. The registry lists runner options for this package that are not in this command (they are not ones we reproduce, or they name another package). Check the registry entry before relying on it. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · ghcr.io/robertkeus/keep-me-secure-mcp
claude mcp add robertkeus-keep-me-secure-mcp -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/robertkeus/keep-me-secure-mcp:v1.4.0
The registry lists runner options for this package that are not in this command (they are not ones we reproduce, or they name another package). Check the registry entry before relying on it. Incomplete: the registry marks -v as required and gives no value we can show, so it is not in this command. Add it before you run it.
What is the Keep Me Secure MCP server?
Keep Me Secure is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.robertkeus/keep-me-secure-mcp. Tells your coding agent whether your installed packages need patching, with advice on what to do. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/robertkeus/keep-me-secure-mcp).
Is the Keep Me Secure MCP server safe to use?
Keep Me Secure scores 38 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. The SBOM its publisher attached lists packages with 19 known advisories as of 5 November 2026. We do not grade that SBOM, as nothing verifies it. 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 Keep Me Secure MCP server expose?
Keep Me Secure exposes 3 tools: check_project, check_platform, check_package. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 358 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Keep Me Secure MCP server still maintained?
Keep Me Secure 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 Keep Me Secure MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 11 checks on Keep Me Secure, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 7 more. 5 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Keep Me Secure: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 1 more. 2 categories score 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to a container image, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.