CVE-2026-77249: mcp-atlassian: incomplete SSRF fix allows blind redirect

GHSA-v9m3-wfh8-5646MEDIUM
Published September 22, 2026
CISO Take

mcp-atlassian, an MCP server that connects AI agents to Jira and Confluence, still has a blind server-side request forgery flaw because the earlier CVE-2026-27826 fix missed one code path that uses a bare requests.get call and follows redirects without validation. In HTTP multi-tenant mode, an unauthenticated attacker can point the server at a public host they control and redirect it to internal addresses such as cloud metadata endpoints. Severity is medium (CVSS 5.3), with no public exploit, no Nuclei template, no KEV listing, a CISA SSVC decision of TRACK and an EPSS of 0.00322 (77th percentile), so this is not an emergency. Blast radius is limited to deployments that expose the HTTP transport on 0.0.0.0 with per-request header auth, and the package has only one tracked downstream dependent. Upgrade to mcp-atlassian 0.22.0, and until then keep the HTTP transport off untrusted networks and block egress to internal ranges and 169.254.169.254.

Sources:NVDGitHub AdvisoryEPSSATLASCISA SSVC

What is the risk?

Medium overall. Exploitation is trivial for anyone who can reach the HTTP endpoint (network vector, low complexity, no privileges, no user interaction). Impact is limited to low confidentiality because the SSRF is blind and the response body is reflected only when an internal service returns JSON shaped like {"users": [...]}. Exposure depends on the deployment: stdio or single-tenant setups are not affected, while internet-facing multi-tenant HTTP or SSE servers are. Real-world likelihood is low given the EPSS percentile, the absence of public exploits and the SSVC TRACK decision. The package has had 38 other CVEs, which signals a pattern of weak input-handling hygiene. Confidence: HIGH, based on the vendor advisory and the fix commit.

How does the attack unfold?

Initial Access
Attacker sends an MCP HTTP request with X-Atlassian-Jira-Url set to an attacker-controlled public host that passes SSRF validation.
AML.T0049
Tool Invocation
Attacker triggers a tool such as jira_create_issue with an unresolvable assignee, forcing the fallback permission-based user lookup.
AML.T0053
Exploitation
The bare requests.get follows the attacker's 302 redirect to an internal address without redirect validation.
Impact
The server issues blind requests to internal services or cloud metadata, enabling reachability mapping and triggering of internal GET endpoints.
AML.T0075

What systems are affected?

PackageEcosystemVulnerable RangePatched
MCP Atlassianpip< 0.22.00.22.0
2 dependents85% patched~4d to patchFull package profile →

Do you use MCP Atlassian? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
5.3 / 10
EPSS
0.3%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Higher than 27% of all CVEs
Exploitation Status
No known exploitation
Sophistication
Trivial

What is the attack surface?

AVACPRUISCIA
AVNetwork
ACLow
PRNone
UINone
SUnchanged
CLow
INone
ANone

What should I do?

5 steps
  1. Upgrade mcp-atlassian to 0.22.0 or later (fix in PR #1448, commit b041733).

  2. If you cannot upgrade, do not run the streamable-http or sse transport on 0.0.0.0 without an authenticating reverse proxy, or switch to stdio or single-tenant mode.

  3. Apply egress filtering on the host or container to deny outbound traffic to RFC1918 ranges, loopback and link-local 169.254.169.254, and enforce IMDSv2 with a hop limit of 1 on cloud instances.

  4. Detect: review logs for requests to /rest/api/2/user/permission/search followed by outbound connections to internal addresses, and for X-Atlassian-Jira-Url headers pointing at unfamiliar public hosts.

  5. Audit custom forks or extensions for other bare requests.* or httpx.* calls that use the configured URL outside the SSRF-hooked session.

What does CISA's SSVC say?

DecisionTrack
Exploitationnone
AutomatableYes
Technical Impactpartial

Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.

How is it classified?

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

This CVE is relevant to:

EU AI Act
Art. 15-Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity
ISO 42001
A.6.2.6-AI system operation and monitoring
NIST AI RMF
MANAGE 2.3-Response to previously unknown risks and incomplete remediation
OWASP LLM Top 10
LLM06-Excessive Agency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-77249?

mcp-atlassian, an MCP server that connects AI agents to Jira and Confluence, still has a blind server-side request forgery flaw because the earlier CVE-2026-27826 fix missed one code path that uses a bare requests.get call and follows redirects without validation. In HTTP multi-tenant mode, an unauthenticated attacker can point the server at a public host they control and redirect it to internal addresses such as cloud metadata endpoints. Severity is medium (CVSS 5.3), with no public exploit, no Nuclei template, no KEV listing, a CISA SSVC decision of TRACK and an EPSS of 0.00322 (77th percentile), so this is not an emergency. Blast radius is limited to deployments that expose the HTTP transport on 0.0.0.0 with per-request header auth, and the package has only one tracked downstream dependent. Upgrade to mcp-atlassian 0.22.0, and until then keep the HTTP transport off untrusted networks and block egress to internal ranges and 169.254.169.254.

Is CVE-2026-77249 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-77249 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-77249?

1. Upgrade mcp-atlassian to 0.22.0 or later (fix in PR #1448, commit b041733). 2. If you cannot upgrade, do not run the streamable-http or sse transport on 0.0.0.0 without an authenticating reverse proxy, or switch to stdio or single-tenant mode. 3. Apply egress filtering on the host or container to deny outbound traffic to RFC1918 ranges, loopback and link-local 169.254.169.254, and enforce IMDSv2 with a hop limit of 1 on cloud instances. 4. Detect: review logs for requests to /rest/api/2/user/permission/search followed by outbound connections to internal addresses, and for X-Atlassian-Jira-Url headers pointing at unfamiliar public hosts. 5. Audit custom forks or extensions for other bare requests.* or httpx.* calls that use the configured URL outside the SSRF-hooked session.

What systems are affected by CVE-2026-77249?

This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: agent frameworks, MCP servers, tool-calling agent gateways, multi-tenant HTTP agent deployments.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-77249?

CVE-2026-77249 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.3 (MEDIUM). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.34%.

What is the AI security impact?

Affected AI Architectures

agent frameworksMCP serverstool-calling agent gatewaysmulti-tenant HTTP agent deployments

MITRE ATLAS Techniques

AML.T0049Exploit Public-Facing Application
AML.T0053AI Agent Tool Invocation
AML.T0075Cloud Service Discovery

Compliance Controls Affected

EU AI Act: Art. 15
ISO 42001: A.6.2.6
NIST AI RMF: MANAGE 2.3
OWASP LLM Top 10: LLM06

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

Summary The fix for the SSRF vulnerability tracked as GHSA-7r34-79r5-rcc9 / CVE-2026-27826 is incomplete. That fix added two defenses: validate_url_for_ssrf() on the per-request X-Atlassian-Jira-Url / X-Atlassian-Confluence-Url headers (blocking a directly-internal base URL), and a redirect-validation hook (_make_ssrf_safe_hook) attached to the fetcher's HTTP session so that an attacker-controlled public host cannot redirect outbound requests to an internal address. However, one outbound request path does not go through the hooked session. JiraUserMixin._lookup_user_by_permissions issues its request with the module-level requests.get instead of self.jira._session.get, so the redirect-validation hook never runs for it. An unauthenticated attacker (in the HTTP / multi-tenant transport mode that binds 0.0.0.0 with no credentials) can therefore set a public base URL that passes validate_url_for_ssrf(), then have their own server return an HTTP redirect to an internal address. The bare requests.get follows that redirect with no validation, resulting in a blind server-side request to an arbitrary internal host and port. Affected component src/mcp_atlassian/jira/users.py, method _lookup_user_by_permissions (the requests.get(...) call): url = f"{self.config.url}/rest/api/2/user/permission/search" params = {"query": username, "permissions": "BROWSE"} ... response = requests.get( # module-level requests, NOT self.jira._session url, params=params, auth=auth, headers=headers, verify=self.config.ssl_verify, ) For comparison, the equivalent non-standard-endpoint call in src/mcp_atlassian/jira/development.py correctly uses the hooked session (self.jira._session.get(...)), and the SSRF redirect hook is attached only to that session in src/mcp_atlassian/servers/dependencies.py (get_session=lambda f: f.jira._session). The bare requests.get in users.py is the one outbound path the hook does not cover. Details — why the existing defenses do not apply here 1. self.config.url is attacker-controlled in the header-PAT branch of _get_fetcher (dependencies.py): header_config = spec.config_class(url=url_header_val, auth_type="pat", personal_token=token_header_val, ...). 2. The middleware validates that header URL with validate_url_for_ssrf() before storing it, so it must resolve to a public address. The attacker simply points it at a public server they control — this passes validation. 3. Credential validation (_create_and_validate → spec.validate_fn) runs against that same attacker-controlled server, so it returns success and no real Atlassian credentials are required. 4. The redirect-validation hook is attached to f.jira._session. _lookup_user_by_permissions does not use that session — it uses bare requests.get, which follows redirects (allow_redirects=True by default) with no SSRF check. Proof of Concept Preconditions: the server is running in HTTP transport (streamable-http or sse) multi-tenant mode, as described in the GHSA-7r34-79r5-rcc9 advisory (binds 0.0.0.0, per-request header auth, no server-side credentials). 1. Attacker stands up a public HTTP server http://attacker.example that: - responds to GET /rest/api/2/user/search (and the atlassian client's user-find call) with 200 [] — an empty user list, forcing the direct-lookup fallthrough; - responds to GET /rest/api/2/user/permission/search with 302 Location: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ (or any internal host:port). 2. Attacker sends a tool call to the MCP HTTP endpoint with headers: - X-Atlassian-Jira-Url: http://attacker.example - X-Atlassian-Jira-Personal-Token: anything and invokes a tool that resolves an assignee — e.g. jira_create_issue / jira_update_issue with assignee set to a value that the direct lookup cannot match. 3. Flow: _get_account_id → _lookup_user_directly returns None (attacker returned []) → _lookup_user_by_permissions → requests.get("http://attacker.example/rest/api/2/user/permission/search?...") → attacker server returns 302 → bare requests follows the redirect to http://169.254.169.254/.... The server makes an outbound GET to the internal target, confirming SSRF. Impact Blind, unauthenticated server-side request forgery from the mcp-atlassian host. An attacker who can reach the HTTP transport endpoint can cause the server to issue GET requests to arbitrary internal hosts and ports (internal service reachability and port discovery, triggering of internal GET-actuated endpoints, reachability of cloud metadata endpoints). The response body is not reflected to the attacker except in the narrow case where an internal service returns a JSON object shaped like {"users": [...]}, so this is primarily a blind SSRF: weaker than the original CVE-2026-27826 (no general internal data exfiltration), but the redirect-based internal-reachability that GHSA-7r34-79r5-rcc9 intended to close remains exploitable through this code path in the latest release (v0.21.1). Suggested Remediation Route the request through the hooked session instead of the module-level requests, mirroring development.py: response = self.jira._session.get( url, params=params, verify=self.config.ssl_verify, ) (The session already carries the appropriate authentication, so the manual auth / Authorization handling can be dropped.) More generally, auditing for any remaining bare requests.* / httpx.* calls that use self.config.url and routing them through the SSRF-hooked session would prevent recurrence. Coordinated Disclosure This appears to be an incomplete fix for GHSA-7r34-79r5-rcc9 (CVE-2026-27826). If you agree, I would kindly ask you to consider requesting a CVE ID for this residual instance through this repository's Security Advisory "Request CVE ID" workflow once confirmed, so that downstream users and distributions can track the additional fix. The severity here is lower than the parent advisory — it is a blind, redirect-only SSRF gated on the HTTP multi-tenant deployment mode — so a Medium rating seems appropriate, and I defer to your judgment on the final score. Thank you very much for your time and for your work on this project.

Exploitation Scenario

An attacker finds an internet-exposed mcp-atlassian instance running in multi-tenant HTTP mode. They host a server that returns an empty user list on the user search endpoint and a 302 redirect to http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ on the permission search endpoint. They then send a tool call such as jira_create_issue with an unresolvable assignee and the X-Atlassian-Jira-Url header set to their server, along with an arbitrary personal token. The credential check succeeds against the attacker's server, the assignee lookup falls through to the bare requests.get, and the MCP host follows the redirect to the internal target. The attacker uses response timing and errors to map internal services and cloud metadata reachability.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-918 — Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF): The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

  • [Implementation, Operation] If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation [REF-1511].
  • [Implementation, Operation] If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation [REF-1511].

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

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

Timeline

Published
September 22, 2026
Last Modified
September 22, 2026
First Seen
September 23, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities