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

Published May 8, 2026
·
Updated

### Summary 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 is the same CWE-918 SSRF class fixed in **GHSA-56c3-vfp2-5qqj** on `czlonkowski/n8n-mcp` (CVSS 8.5 HIGH). The remediation pattern is identical: extend the blocklist with the IPv6 prefix families that embed IPv4. The endpoint is **unauthenticated** — it is the login flow itself — so attack complexity is low aside from the host-level routing dependency. Affected: latest `main` HEAD `23f4fda` and current production `v1.7.6` deployment at `https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/v0/auth/http`. ### Details #### Vulnerable code `internal/api/handlers/v0/auth/http.go:125-133`: ```go func isBlockedIP(ip net.IP) bool { if ip == nil { return true } return ip.IsLoopback() || ip.IsPrivate() || ip.IsLinkLocalUnicast() || ip.IsMulticast() || ip.IsUnspecified() || cgnatRange.Contains(ip) } ``` Per Go source (`src/net/ip.go`), the relevant stdlib helpers cover: | Helper | IPv6 coverage | |---|---| | `IsLoopback` | `::1`, IPv4-mapped of 127/8 (via `To4()` fast-path) | | `IsPrivate` | ULA `fc00::/7` only — `ip[0]&0xfe == 0xfc` | | `IsLinkLocalUnicast` | `fe80::/10` only — `ip[1]&0xc0 == 0x80` (NOT `fec0::/10` which is `0xc0`) | | `IsMulticast` | `ff00::/8` | | `IsUnspecified` | `::` | The Registry's blocklist therefore **does not** cover: | Prefix | Defined in | Why dangerous | |---|---|---| | `2002::/16` | RFC 3056 (6to4) | Bits 16-47 embed an arbitrary IPv4 address. `2002:a9fe:a9fe::` is the 6to4 encoding of `169.254.169.254` (AWS / Azure metadata). `2002:0a00:0001::` encodes `10.0.0.1`. On hosts with 6to4 routing or any explicit `2002::/16` route, the dial reaches the embedded IPv4. | | `64:ff9b::/96` | RFC 6052 (NAT64 well-known prefix) | Low 32 bits embed an IPv4 address. `64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe` translates to `169.254.169.254` on any NAT64-enabled network — which is the **default** in IPv6-only GKE node pools, AWS IPv6-only EC2, Azure IPv6 VMs with NAT64, and DNS64/NAT64 corporate networks. | | `64:ff9b:1::/48` | RFC 8215 (local-use NAT64) | Same tunnelling concern, intended for operator-defined NAT64. | | `fec0::/10` | RFC 3879 (deprecated site-local) | Some BSD / older Linux stacks still honour these for routing into site-local internal networks. | `safeDialContext` resolves DNS once and dials by IP (good — pins against rebinding TOCTOU), but the IP-allowlist gate is the security boundary, and that gate is incomplete. #### Exposure surface `POST /v0/auth/http` (and `POST /v0.1/auth/http`) is registered in `internal/api/handlers/v0/auth/http.go:197-218` and routed unauthenticated in `internal/api/router/v0.go:24,39`: ```go huma.Register(api, huma.Operation{ OperationID: "exchange-http-token...", Method: http.MethodPost, Path: pathPrefix + "/auth/http", Summary: "Exchange HTTP signature for Registry JWT", ... }, func(ctx context.Context, input *HTTPTokenExchangeInput) (...) { response, err := handler.ExchangeToken(ctx, input.Body.Domain, ...) ... }) ``` The handler builds `https://<attacker-domain>/.well-known/mcp-registry-auth` (line 143) and dials via the `safeDialContext`-equipped client. The `domain` parameter is taken verbatim from the unauthenticated POST body. Critical order-of-operations confirmation in `CoreAuthHandler.ExchangeToken` (`internal/api/handlers/v0/auth/common.go:246-265`): 1. `ValidateDomainAndTimestamp(domain, timestamp)` — domain format check (no IP literal, must contain dot) 2. `DecodeAndValidateSignature(signedTimestamp)` — hex decode 3. **`keyFetcher(ctx, domain)`** ← SSRF dial happens here 4. `VerifySignatureWithKeys(...)` ← only AFTER fetch So the SSRF dial fires before any signature verification. Attacker needs only a valid RFC3339 timestamp (±15s window) and any hex string for `signedTimestamp`. ### PoC Tested against `main` HEAD `23f4fda` (`make dev-compose` boots Registry on `localhost:8080`). #### Step 1 — Set up attacker DNS Configure `attacker.example` with the AAAA records: ``` attacker-6to4.example. AAAA 2002:a9fe:a9fe:: ; 6to4 -> 169.254.169.254 attacker-nat64.example. AAAA 64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe ; NAT64 -> 169.254.169.254 attacker-rfc1918.example. AAAA 64:ff9b::a00:0001 ; NAT64 -> 10.0.0.1 ``` (Equivalent free options: a domain on Cloudflare with manual AAAA, or a `requestbin`-style service with custom DNS.) #### Step 2 — Trigger the dial (no credentials required) ```bash curl -i https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/v0/auth/http \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ -d "{\"domain\":\"attacker-nat64.example\",\"timestamp\":\"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)\",\"signedTimestamp\":\"00\"}" ``` Timestamp need only be within ±15s of server clock. `signedTimestamp` is any hex string — it is decoded but only verified AFTER `FetchKey` has already dialled. #### Step 3 — Observe On a NAT64-enabled host (default in IPv6-only GKE / AWS IPv6 nodes / Cloudflare WARP), the server-side dial reaches `169.254.169.254:443`. Tcpdump on the registry host confirms the outbound TLS handshake to the embedded IPv4. Where 169.254.169.254 listens on a TLS port (most cloud metadata services do not, but kube-apiserver, internal admin panels, and bespoke IPv4 services do), the connection completes and the response (limited to 4 KiB by `MaxKeyResponseSize`) is consumed as a key candidate. For hosts without 6to4 / NAT64 routing, the dial fails with `no route to host` rather than `refusing to connect to private or loopback address` — proving the gate did not block. The differential error message provides a blind-SSRF oracle for probing internal services for existence / TLS port reachability. #### Expected behaviour after fix `isBlockedIP` should return `true` for any IPv6 address in the prefix families listed above, mirroring the n8n-mcp `isPrivateOrMappedIpv6` helper (GHSA-56c3-vfp2-5qqj patch). Reference implementation: ```go func isBlockedIPv6Prefix(ip net.IP) bool { v6 := ip.To16() if v6 == nil || ip.To4() != nil { return false } // 6to4 (2002::/16) if v6[0] == 0x20 && v6[1] == 0x02 { return true } // NAT64 well-known 64:ff9b::/96 if v6[0] == 0x00 && v6[1] == 0x64 && v6[2] == 0xff && v6[3] == 0x9b && v6[4] == 0 && v6[5] == 0 && v6[6] == 0 && v6[7] == 0 { return true } // NAT64 RFC 8215 local-use 64:ff9b:1::/48 if v6[0] == 0x00 && v6[1] == 0x64 && v6[2] == 0xff && v6[3] == 0x9b && v6[4] == 0x00 && v6[5] == 0x01 { return true } // Site-local fec0::/10 (deprecated, RFC 3879 -- still honoured by some stacks) if v6[0] == 0xfe && (v6[1]&0xc0) == 0xc0 { return true } return false } ``` Then extend the call site: ```go return ip.IsLoopback() || ip.IsPrivate() || ip.IsLinkLocalUnicast() || ip.IsMulticast() || ip.IsUnspecified() || cgnatRange.Contains(ip) || isBlockedIPv6Prefix(ip) ``` A regression test fixture should set up a stub resolver returning each of the four prefix families and assert that `safeDialContext` returns the "private/loopback" error before any dial. ### Impact CWE: **CWE-918** Server-Side Request Forgery (consistent with parent precedent GHSA-56c3-vfp2-5qqj). CVSS:3.1: matching the n8n-mcp precedent (`AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N` ~= **8.5 HIGH**). AC = High because exploitation depends on the registry host having NAT64 or 6to4 routing — the **default** on IPv6-only and dual-stack cloud network plans (GKE IPv6, AWS IPv6-only EC2, Azure IPv6 VMs with NAT64) but not on plain-IPv4 deployments. Privileges = None (the endpoint is the login flow itself). For the official `https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io` deployment specifically, this lets an unauthenticated attacker reach any IPv4 address that is routable from the registry's outbound interface — including AWS / GCP / Azure metadata services if hosted on a cloud VM with metadata enabled, internal Kubernetes API servers, internal admin panels, etc. The 4 KiB response cap (`MaxKeyResponseSize`) limits exfiltrated content per request but does not prevent fingerprinting / oracle attacks (status-code differential, response-length differential). Self-hosters running the registry on dual-stack / IPv6-only infrastructure are equally exposed. ### Why this slipped past PR #1227 The April 29 hardening batch (commit `1201cbd`, "security: fix open redirect and add small hardening") explicitly added `safeDialContext` to block "loopback, RFC1918, link-local, multicast, CGNAT, or IP-literal/single-label" addresses. The author correctly identified the IPv4 attack surface and the link-local cloud-metadata vector, but composed the blocklist from Go's per-class stdlib helpers — which collectively miss the IPv6 prefix families that *embed* IPv4. The same gap was caught and fixed in n8n-mcp (GHSA-56c3-vfp2-5qqj). No commits in `git log --since=2026-03-01 internal/api/handlers/v0/auth/http.go` reference 6to4 / NAT64 / site-local. ### Credit Reported by **Matteo Panzeri** (GitHub: **matte1782**).

Affected Software

2 affected componentsFixes available
go/github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry<1.7.7
1.7.7
Lfprojects Mcp Registry<1.7.7

Event History

May 8, 2026
Advisory Published
via GitHub·05:20 PM
Data Sourced
via GitHub·05:20 PM
DescriptionWeaknessAffected Software
May 14, 2026
CVE Published
via MITRE·09:02 PM
Data Sourced
via MITRE·09:02 PM
DescriptionWeakness
Data Sourced
via NVD·09:16 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeaknessAffected Software
Free Weekly Intel

Don't miss critical vulnerabilities

Join thousands of security professionals who receive our weekly digest of trending CVEs, zero-days, and exploited vulnerabilities.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

1

What is the severity of CVE-2026-44430?

CVE-2026-44430 is considered a medium severity vulnerability.

2

How do I fix CVE-2026-44430?

To fix CVE-2026-44430, upgrade to version 1.7.7 of the affected package.

3

What software is affected by CVE-2026-44430?

CVE-2026-44430 affects the 'github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry' package.

4

What impact does CVE-2026-44430 have on the system?

CVE-2026-44430 may allow unauthorized access to internal addresses, leading to potential information exposure.

5

Is there a patch available for CVE-2026-44430?

Yes, a patch is available in version 1.7.7 of the affected software.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203