CVE-2026-73496

HIGH
Published September 14, 2026

MCP Atlassian is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Atlassian products (Confluence and Jira). Prior to 0.22.0, the confluence_upload_attachment and confluence_upload_attachments tools pass a client-controlled file_path through src/mcp_atlassian/confluence/attachments.py upload_attachment,...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package Ecosystem Vulnerable Range Patched
MCP Atlassian pip No patch
1 dependents 80% patched ~10d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use MCP Atlassian? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
7.7 / 10
EPSS
0.3%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Higher than 26% of all CVEs
Exploitation Status
No known exploitation
Sophistication
N/A

What is the attack surface?

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

What should I do?

No patch available

Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-73496?

MCP Atlassian is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Atlassian products (Confluence and Jira). Prior to 0.22.0, the confluence_upload_attachment and confluence_upload_attachments tools pass a client-controlled file_path through src/mcp_atlassian/confluence/attachments.py upload_attachment, and the jira_update_issue attachments parameter reaches src/mcp_atlassian/jira/attachments.py upload_attachment, without confining either path to an approved server workspace. In a remote HTTP, SSE, or multi-user deployment, absolute or traversing paths are resolved on the MCP server and uploaded to Atlassian, allowing a client with write-tool access to disclose server files, environment-held Atlassian credentials, or another tenant's data. A local single-user stdio deployment does not cross this trust boundary because the server runs in the caller's environment. This issue is fixed in version 0.22.0.

Is CVE-2026-73496 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-73496 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-73496?

No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-73496?

CVE-2026-73496 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.7 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.33%.

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

MCP Atlassian is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Atlassian products (Confluence and Jira). Prior to 0.22.0, the confluence_upload_attachment and confluence_upload_attachments tools pass a client-controlled file_path through src/mcp_atlassian/confluence/attachments.py upload_attachment, and the jira_update_issue attachments parameter reaches src/mcp_atlassian/jira/attachments.py upload_attachment, without confining either path to an approved server workspace. In a remote HTTP, SSE, or multi-user deployment, absolute or traversing paths are resolved on the MCP server and uploaded to Atlassian, allowing a client with write-tool access to disclose server files, environment-held Atlassian credentials, or another tenant's data. A local single-user stdio deployment does not cross this trust boundary because the server runs in the caller's environment. This issue is fixed in version 0.22.0.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-22 — Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'): The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

  • [Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
  • [Architecture and Design] For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

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

Timeline

Published
September 14, 2026
Last Modified
September 16, 2026
First Seen
September 15, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities