Loading the registry…
MCP server for Offensive360 — run SAST scans on a directory and get findings back inside your AI assistant
The publisher performed an authenticated act of publication — proving control of a namespace in the official MCP registry, or appearing in a first-party catalogue an operator curates. That establishes WHO published it. It is not a security finding, and attested artifacts carry Flagged verdicts too.
1 critical finding reported by agent-audit-kit. The composite score alone does not reflect this — read the per-scanner reports below.
This artifact ships from 2 sources and their verdicts differ. The worst is github (Flagged). Installing from a cleaner source does not mean the others are safe — check the source you actually install from.
github: https://github.com/offensive360/mcp-server, 14 findings
Choose your runtime: the CLI writes the mcpServers config entry for that target.
nerlo install --target claude-code -- o360-mcp
Install respects the composite badge: Clean proceeds, Caution prompts for confirmation, and Flagged is refused. Write operations require an API token.
6 of 11 scanners examined this package. The rest do not apply to it — language, ecosystem and packaging decide which analyzers can say anything, and a scanner that cannot examine an artifact reports nothing rather than passing it.
v1.4.0
0 findings · 0.6s
v2.0.11
5 findings · 7.2s
v0.3.26
7 findings · 0.5s
v0.1.0
2 findings · 27.1s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 27.1s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 17.8s
No report in this scan: capslock, govulncheck, osv-scanner, trivy, trivy_image.
1 scan on record. Every scan's full results are retained immutably for 24 months.
| Completed | Composite | Change | Scanners | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2026 | Scan Halted | — | agentshield: completecisco-skill-scanner: completeagent-audit-kit: completenerlo-behavioral: completenerlo-install-instruction: completenerlo-multi-source: complete | rejected |
Findings in files this artifact installs stand as reported; a model re-read the rest and said which ones it believes are false positives. This is a second opinion published beside the evidence, not a correction to it: the per-scanner reports above are unchanged, every dismissed finding is still listed there at its original severity, and the score and the Flagged badge are computed from those raw severities alone. Nothing below moved them.
Out of 14 findings across every scanner that examined this package. None of the 1 finding rated critical by their scanner were dismissed.
These findings are in files this artifact installs and are not placeholder values. No false-positive basis can be corroborated for such a finding, so this review never dismisses one; they were not sent to the model and stand at their scanner's severity.
2 DATA_EXFIL_JS_NETWORK
Files: /repo/src/index.js · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
2 opt.nerlo-rules.nerlo-js-secret-to-network-egress
Files: /repo/src/index.js · reported by nerlo-behavioral
1 AAK-ANTHROPIC-SDK-001
Files: src/index.js · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-DNS-REBIND-002
Files: package.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-MCP-018
Files: src/index.js · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-MCP-MARKETPLACE-CONFIG-FETCH-001
Files: src/index.js · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-OAUTH-3P-001
Files: package.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-SEC-MD-001
Files: SECURITY.md · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-SUPPLY-004
Files: package.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 LOW_ANALYZABILITY
Files: /repo · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 MANIFEST_MISSING_LICENSE
Files: /repo/SKILL.md · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION
Files: /repo/SKILL.md · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
Critical config fetch, secret egress, and DNS rebind risks.
The artifact performs critical configuration fetching in `src/index.js`. It also exhibits potential for secret data egress to the network from `/repo/src/index.js` and includes a DNS rebind vulnerability in `package.json`. Additionally, it uses the Anthropic SDK in `src/index.js`, which may involve external AI model interaction. These capabilities suggest significant data exposure and control flow risks.
Concern level assessed by the review: Critical. This is the review's scale, not the registry badge.
Reviewed by gemini-2.5-flash. The model sees the findings, not your code, and cannot change a score.