Skip to content

GHSA-7683-3w9x-ch42 CVE-2026-63119

MCP Ruby SDK: Unbounded line buffer in stdio transports leads to memory exhaustion (DoS)

Medium RubyGems
Severity
6.2 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.19%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.43% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
0.23.0
Upgrade mcp to this version or later

Description

Summary

The stdio transports in MCP::Server::Transports::StdioTransport and MCP::Client::Stdio read newline-delimited JSON-RPC frames using IO#gets with no limit argument. CRuby's IO#gets with no limit reads from the current position until the next separator (\n) with no upper bound on the returned string length. A peer that streams bytes without ever emitting a newline causes gets to accumulate the entire stream in a single Ruby String until the process is killed by the operating-system OOM killer.

This is the same vulnerability class tracked in sibling MCP SDKs as GHSA-74gp-qhv5-v493 (Kotlin), GHSA-wqgc-pwpr-pq7r (TypeScript), GHSA-655q-2283-6jgj (Python), and others. It was identified during a cross-SDK audit; ruby-sdk had no prior report.

Affected code

Verified at main @ cf44475c.

Server transport — lib/mcp/server/transports/stdio_transport.rb

# line 23
while @open && (line = $stdin.gets)        # <-- no limit argument
  response = @session.handle_json(line.strip)
  ...

# line 76
while @open && (line = $stdin.gets)        # <-- no limit argument
  begin
    parsed = JSON.parse(line.strip, symbolize_names: true)

$stdin is the raw process global (only set_encoding is applied at line 16); there is no wrapper imposing a length limit.

Client transport — lib/mcp/client/stdio.rb

# line 150
@stdin, @stdout, @stderr, @wait_thread = Open3.popen3(spawn_env, @command, *@args)

# line 228
line = @stdout.gets                         # <-- no limit argument
raise_connection_error!(method, params) if line.nil?
parsed = JSON.parse(line.strip)

@stdout is the raw IO returned by Open3.popen3. The @read_timeout guard at line 227 (wait_for_readable!) only gates the IO.select before gets is invoked; once bytes are flowing, gets blocks indefinitely accumulating into one string.

Impact

Denial of service via memory exhaustion. A peer that controls the byte stream delivered to the stdio transport can grow a single Ruby String until the process exhausts available memory.

Threat-model caveat (important): In the default stdio deployment, the peer process already holds local execution privileges equal to or greater than the victim:

  • On the server side (StdioTransport#open), the writer to $stdin is the parent process that spawned the server, which already holds Process.kill, environment control, and filesystem access over the child. This direction is a robustness defect rather than a security boundary in typical deployments.
  • On the client side (Client::Stdio#read_response), the writer is the third-party MCP server binary the host application chose to spawn via Open3.popen3. In an unsandboxed deployment that binary already has local code execution as the host user.

This issue is primarily a security concern for:

  • (a) host applications that sandbox the spawned MCP server (container, restricted user, seccomp) while piping its stdout to an unsandboxed host process — an unbounded gets lets a memory-capped sandboxed process exhaust the unconstrained host;
  • (b) HTTP-to-stdio bridge deployments that forward bytes from a remote peer to a stdio server's stdin (note: surveyed bridges re-frame JSON-RPC and emit their own newlines, mitigating this in practice);
  • (c) robustness against non-malicious servers that emit large unterminated output (misconfigured logging to stdout, runaway loops), which can crash the host process and all other MCP sessions it manages.

The bug fires before the JSON-RPC initialize handshake, since gets cannot return until \n arrives.

Reproduction

# poc_ruby_stdio_oom.rb — drives the real client transport against a producer that never emits \n
require "mcp/client/stdio"

# `yes` writes "y\n" — instead use a producer that never sends \n:
producer = %q{ruby -e 'STDOUT.sync=true; loop { print "A" * 65536 }'}

client = MCP::Client::Stdio.new(command: "bash", args: ["-c", producer])
client.start
# any request triggers read_response → @stdout.gets → unbounded String growth
client.send_request(method: "initialize", params: {})

Observed: process RSS grows linearly with bytes produced; gets never returns; process is OOM-killed.

Suggested fix

IO#gets accepts a second limit argument. Apply a configurable maximum line length (default suggested: 4 MiB — large enough for any realistic JSON-RPC frame including base64-embedded images) at all three call sites, and treat an over-limit line as a transport error that closes the connection:

MAX_LINE_BYTES = 4 * 1024 * 1024

while @open && (line = $stdin.gets("\n", MAX_LINE_BYTES))
  unless line.end_with?("\n")
    # gets returned because the limit was hit, not because a newline arrived
    raise MCP::TransportError, "stdio frame exceeds #{MAX_LINE_BYTES} bytes without newline"
  end
  ...
end

Apply the same pattern at stdio_transport.rb:76 and client/stdio.rb:228. Expose MAX_LINE_BYTES as a constructor option on both transports for callers with legitimate large-frame needs.

Credit

Identified during a cross-SDK audit of the stdio unbounded-buffer vulnerability class, prompted by GHSA-74gp-qhv5-v493 (reporter: tonghuaroot).

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
mcp
< 0.23.0
0.23.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

mcp RubyGems → 0.23.0

bundler
bundle update mcp # Gemfile: gem "mcp", ">= 0.23.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.2

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • 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, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-h669-8m4g-r2hc
MCP Ruby SDK: Unbounded JSON-RPC request body causes uncontrolled memory allocation in StreamableHTTPTransport
High Also affects mcp
GHSA-5p9g-j988-pcwv
MCP Ruby SDK: Ruby SSE Session Poisoning
High Also affects mcp
GHSA-52jp-gj8w-j6xh
MCP Ruby SDK: Unbounded session retention in StreamableHTTPTransport allows memory exhaustion via initialize flood
Medium Also affects mcp
GHSA-rjr6-rcgv-9m7m
MCP Ruby SDK: Streamable HTTP transport lacks DNS-rebinding (Host/Origin) protection
Medium Also affects mcp
GHSA-qvqr-5cv7-wh35
MCP Ruby SDK: Insufficient Session Binding Allows SSE Stream Hijacking via Session ID Replay
Medium Also affects mcp
GHSA-cggf-277g-3q54
pypdf has possible large memory usage when parsing page tree
High Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4
Glob: AbortSignal cancellation bypass allows post-timeout filesystem traversal
Medium Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-42gh-23hr-vphw
pypdf has possible long runtimes when retrieving page labels
High Same weakness, CWE-400
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor