FKIE_CVE-2026-45781

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-05-14 21:16 - Updated: 2026-05-16 02:16
Severity
3.5 (Low) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Summary
The MCP Registry provides MCP clients with a list of MCP servers, like an app store for MCP servers. Prior to 1.7.9, OCI ownership validation skips label-match check when upstream OCI registry returns HTTP 429, letting any authenticated publisher bind their io.github.<user>/* namespace to OCI images they do not control. internal/validators/registries/oci.go:104-119 fails open on http.StatusTooManyRequests: when the registry's anonymous fetch to the upstream OCI registry is rate-limited, ValidateOCI returns nil and the publish is accepted without ever running the io.modelcontextprotocol.server.name label-match check at lines 122-141. That label check is the only cross-system ownership proof the registry applies to OCI packages — every other registry type (NPM, PyPI, NuGet, MCPB) treats a non-200 upstream response as a hard error. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.7.9.
References
security-advisories@github.comhttps://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/security/advisories/GHSA-2v5f-5r6w-p67r
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/security/advisories/GHSA-2v5f-5r6w-p67r
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "The MCP Registry provides MCP clients with a list of MCP servers, like an app store for MCP servers. Prior to 1.7.9, OCI ownership validation skips label-match check when upstream OCI registry returns HTTP 429, letting any authenticated publisher bind their io.github.\u003cuser\u003e/* namespace to OCI images they do not control. internal/validators/registries/oci.go:104-119 fails open on http.StatusTooManyRequests: when the registry\u0027s anonymous fetch to the upstream OCI registry is rate-limited, ValidateOCI returns nil and the publish is accepted without ever running the io.modelcontextprotocol.server.name label-match check at lines 122-141. That label check is the only cross-system ownership proof the registry applies to OCI packages \u2014 every other registry type (NPM, PyPI, NuGet, MCPB) treats a non-200 upstream response as a hard error. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.7.9."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-45781",
  "lastModified": "2026-05-16T02:16:15.380",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 3.5,
          "baseSeverity": "LOW",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "LOW",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 2.1,
        "impactScore": 1.4,
        "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-05-14T21:16:48.480",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
      "url": "https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/security/advisories/GHSA-2v5f-5r6w-p67r"
    },
    {
      "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
      "url": "https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/security/advisories/GHSA-2v5f-5r6w-p67r"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
  "vulnStatus": "Deferred",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-636"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.