Reversecore MCP
OCI · GHCR.IO/SJKIM1127/REVERSECORE_MCP · 2 COMPONENTS
Security-first MCP server for reverse engineering, malware analysis, forensics, and SAST.
Available components
Last scanned (14 hours ago)
Scores higher than 93% 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 & Transparency48
- 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
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 38 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability82
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 18370 tokens (~118/item across 155 items; 151 tools + 4 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage97
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 90% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
- Structured output schemas are declared (99% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety75
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- 0 of 3 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation; "cve_fuzz_target" implies "execute" and declares no destructiveHint at all, which the MCP spec reads as destructive by default. See how to fix → Fail
- An AI judge read all 152 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: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: 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 (12)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (4)
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.
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.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 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 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 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 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 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 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 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.
- 17 Oct 26 +8
- Stability: unverified → 0.63 ▲ functional
- 28 Sept 26 0
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/sjkim1127/reversecore_mcp@3.0.5
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 180 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-6v38-4h7w-rj9h | CVE-2026-96760 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-7vr2-2fgp-9w7p | CVE-2026-114615 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-8m4g-j4wp-wgcg | CVE-2026-114616 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-c5mf-xmp2-59rc | CVE-2026-114617 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-c73q-w75p-j82v | CVE-2026-116672 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-fch4-3c6x-j4gc | CVE-2026-114618 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-jj7h-c3hg-m23x | CVE-2026-114614 | low | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-q686-2qmg-hqc7 | CVE-2026-114619 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-x4rv-c3wx-4cr8 | CVE-2026-114620 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4354 | CVE-2026-114614 | low | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4355 | CVE-2026-114615 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4356 | CVE-2026-114616 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4357 | CVE-2026-114617 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4358 | CVE-2026-114618 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4359 | CVE-2026-114619 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4360 | CVE-2026-114620 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-3cm8-v4mc-gppg | CVE-2022-4510 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | no |
| PYSEC-2026-787 | CVE-2022-4510 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-cg8m-r9f2-5wm2 | CVE-2026-114134 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 | critical | yes | ||
| PYSEC-2026-4320 | none | yes | ||
| GHSA-45c3-73f7-pv4m | CVE-2026-114605 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-7xgj-8392-5q4r | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes | |
| GHSA-23mf-xhv8-69c2 | CVE-2026-110859 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-59cr-6r3x-644w | CVE-2026-100689 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-83vg-56qc-22m7 | CVE-2026-114145 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-f9j4-qggq-h239 | CVE-2026-110858 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-fx3j-rwgx-fr94 | CVE-2026-110855 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-gq48-pqfc-9p58 | CVE-2026-110860 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-m64x-33q8-m5h7 | CVE-2026-110856 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-w8jc-g24h-crhw | CVE-2026-110857 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-9pg5-8c7x-5hfx | CVE-2026-119284 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-jpxq-7h8p-2q76 | CVE-2026-119283 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-5639-2j2p-m4mx | CVE-2026-102991 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4243 | CVE-2026-102991 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-5h93-6whr-6q8j | CVE-2026-116685 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv | CVE-2026-59951 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-rwrf-2pqf-9j8j | CVE-2026-116686 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-w4fh-qvv9-3v23 | CVE-2026-116684 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-6v7p-g79w-8964 | CVE-2026-57585 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-j586-36cw-2gc2 | CVE-2026-114613 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-3625 | CVE-2026-57585 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-xcq7-p3pf-p88h | CVE-2026-114603 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-22hg-r758-rrw9 | CVE-2026-112390 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-24rc-8hj2-v98c | CVE-2026-96638 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-254f-3936-288h | CVE-2026-112391 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-27h8-gf7j-v5hc | CVE-2026-112392 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf | CVE-2026-112393 | critical | yes | |
| GHSA-3j72-p6qg-6xp7 | CVE-2026-96642 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-4558-3h8r-v8xp | CVE-2026-112394 | medium | yes |
Showing 50 of 180 vulnerabilities.
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 →
vulnerability_hunter ~273
Automated vulnerability discovery combining multiple analysis techniques. This tool performs a comprehensive security analysis: 1. Scans for dangerous API calls (buffer overflow, command injection, etc.) 2. Traces back to find how each dangerous call is reached 3. Identifies if inputs are user-controllable (light taint analysis) 4. Generates vulnerability report with YARA detection rules
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| _bypass_queue | boolean | – | – |
| auto_dynamic_verify | boolean | – | If True and angr finds a concrete input, automatically run it in GDB to verify exploitability (default: True) |
| file_path | string | yes | Path to the binary file to analyze |
| generate_yara | boolean | – | Generate YARA rules for detected vulnerabilities (default: True) |
| max_depth | integer | – | Maximum backtrace depth for call chain analysis (default: 3) |
| run_async | boolean | – | If True, run task in background and return job ID immediately (default: False) |
| severity_filter | string | – | Filter by severity - "all", "critical", "high", "medium" (default: "all") |
| timeout | integer | – | Analysis timeout in seconds (default: 300) |
| use_symbolic_execution | boolean | – | Enable angr to verify paths and extract concrete values (default: True) |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | – | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Reversecore MCP server?
Reversecore MCP runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/sjkim1127/reversecore_mcp:3.0.5. 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/sjkim1127/reversecore_mcp
claude mcp add sjkim1127-reversecore-mcp -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/sjkim1127/reversecore_mcp:3.0.5
What is the Reversecore MCP server?
Reversecore MCP is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.sjkim1127/reversecore-mcp. Security-first MCP server for reverse engineering, malware analysis, forensics, and SAST. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/sjkim1127/reversecore_mcp).
Is the Reversecore MCP server safe to use?
Reversecore MCP scores 55 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. The SBOM its publisher attached lists packages with 180 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 Reversecore MCP server expose?
Reversecore MCP exposes 151 tools: generate_advanced_yara_rule, diff_binaries, analyze_variant_changes, match_libraries, patch_diff_1day, and 146 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 18,314 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Reversecore MCP server still maintained?
Reversecore MCP 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 licence is the Reversecore MCP server under?
Reversecore MCP declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the Reversecore MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on Reversecore MCP, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 8 more. 4 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Reversecore MCP: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts and Dependency health. One category scores 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.