CVE Intelligence
High Access control

CVE-2026-79750 — MCPHub authenticated horizontal IDOR: any non-admin user executes tools on other users' MCP servers (cross-tenant file read + SSRF)

MCPHub is a unified hub for centrally managing and dynamically orchestrating multiple MCP servers/APIs into separate endpoints with flexible routing strategies. Prior to version 1.0.30, MCPHub scopes non-admin users to servers they own (list views and config edits enforce ownership), but the tool-execution API does not. Any authenticated non-admin user can invoke tools on MCP servers owned by other users — servers they cannot even see in GET /api/servers. Because connected MCP servers carry real capability (filesystem, HTTP fetch, cloud APIs with the owner's keys), this is cross-tenant compromise: demonstrated arbitrary host file read (/etc/passwd, another user's secrets) and SSRF. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.30.

Published Aug 31, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

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 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+5
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • 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
0.43%
ahead of 36% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Samanhappy
MCPHub
CVSS base
7.7
High · 2 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
No
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.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Samanhappy MCPHub).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (access control), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Samanhappy MCPHub version < 1.0.30 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
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.7 CVSS 3.1 High 3.1 4.0 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.7 CVSS 3.1 High — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (IDOR)

Other CVEs with this weakness →

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).
  • Audit administrative actions and access to resources outside each user’s normal pattern.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSauthentication logsapplication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · samanhappy/mcphub
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 7.7
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 31, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Samanhappy
every CVE for this vendor
Access control
same class
CWE-639
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-94047 samanhappy MCPHub Template Import Endpoint templateService.ts importTemplate privileges management 25d
  • CVE-2026-90474 MCPHub before 1.0.32 OAuth 2.0 Authentication Bypass Sep 12, 2026
  • CVE-2026-79746 MCPHub: Server-scoped bearer key gains access to an entire group via partial (any-overlap) server matching Aug 31, 2026
  • CVE-2026-79747 MCPHub vulnerable to SSRF: a non-admin user can make mcphub request arbitrary URLs and read the response (OpenAPI proxy + transport dial) Aug 31, 2026
  • CVE-2026-79748 MCPHub: Authenticated non-admin user achieves RCE via POST /api/servers (missing authorization on stdio command/args) Aug 31, 2026
  • CVE-2026-79749 MCPHub: SSRF Guard Bypass via IPv6 Transition Addresses in URL Validation Aug 31, 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-2026-79750 is "MCPHub authenticated horizontal IDOR: any non-admin user executes tools on other users' MCP servers (cross-tenant file read + SSRF)", rated High. It affects MCPHub (Samanhappy); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.7 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.43% 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.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.