Medium SSRF exploit reference

CVE-2026-44430 — MCP Registry: Unauthenticated SSRF: HTTP namespace verification dials 6to4 / NAT64 / site-local IPv6 addresses, bypassing private-address allowlist

The MCP Registry provides MCP clients with a list of MCP servers, like an app store for MCP servers. Prior to 1.7.7, the Registry's HTTP-based namespace verification (POST /v0/auth/http, POST /v0.1/auth/http) uses safeDialContext (internal/api/handlers/v0/auth/http.go:67-110) to refuse dialling private/internal addresses when fetching the well-known public-key file from a publisher-supplied domain. The blocklist (isBlockedIP, lines 125-133) relies entirely on Go stdlib's IsLoopback / IsPrivate / IsLinkLocalUnicast / IsMulticast / IsUnspecified plus a manual CGNAT range. None of these cover IPv6 6to4 (2002::/16), NAT64 (64:ff9b::/96 and 64:ff9b:1::/48 per RFC 8215), or deprecated site-local (fec0::/10) — all of which encode arbitrary IPv4 in the address bits and tunnel to RFC1918 / cloud-metadata services on dual-stack / NAT64-enabled hosts. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.7.7.

Published May 14, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Low

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.

How the score was calculated

EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
Technical severity (medium)+3
CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation

Not confirmed

Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.

EPSS FIRST

0.29%

ahead of 20% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026

Affects

Lfprojects

Mcp Registry and 1 more

CVSS base

4.0

Medium · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation

Proof of concept

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script the kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Lfprojects Mcp Registry, Modelcontextprotocol Registry).
The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (ssrf), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Lfprojects	Mcp Registry	< 1.7.7	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database
Modelcontextprotocol	Registry	version < 1.7.7	Vulnerable	CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector

Network

Attack complexity

High

Privileges required

None

User interaction

None

Scope

Changed

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

Low

Availability

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
6.3	CVSS 4.0	Medium	—	—	security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.3	CVSS 4.0	Medium	—	—	GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
4.0	CVSS 3.1	Medium	2.2	1.4	nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.29%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
Monitor outbound requests from the server to internal IPs and cloud metadata endpoints.

web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSegress traffic

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

2026
Affected products added · modelcontextprotocol/registry
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
SSVC assessment updated
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Record published
Oct 13, 2026
CVSS changed · 4.0
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Source status changed · → Modified
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Record created in this database
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVE published
May 14, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

1 on the record

github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/security/advisories/GHSA-r48c-v28r-pf6v
Exploit, Vendor Advisory, x_refsource_CONFIRM, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Lfprojects
every CVE for this vendor

SSRF
same class

CWE-918
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

Medium CVE-2026-44428 MCP Registry: GitHub OIDC tokens replayable across registry deployments due to shared audience May 14, 2026
None CVE-2026-44427 MCP Registry: Open Redirect May 14, 2026
Low CVE-2026-45781 MCP Registry: OCI ownership validation fails open on upstream rate limits, allowing attacker-controlled package claims May 14, 2026
Medium CVE-2026-44429 MCP Registry: Stored XSS in catalogue UI via attribute-quote breakout in publisher-controlled `websiteUrl` May 14, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-44430 is "MCP Registry: Unauthenticated SSRF: HTTP namespace verification dials 6to4 / NAT64 / site-local IPv6 addresses, bypassing private-address allowlist", rated Medium. It affects Mcp Registry (Lfprojects); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 4.0 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.29% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.