GHSA-cc5h-2pwp-pvcc CVE-2026-77248 PYSEC-2026-4089

MCP Atlassian: Unauthenticated arbitrary local file read via upload_attachment file_path, chained with missing auth on streamable-http transport

High PyPI

Severity: 8.6 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.47%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.08% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
Fix: 0.22.0; Upgrade mcp-atlassian to this version or later

Description

Summary

In the documented multi-user HTTP deployment (--transport streamable-http with global operator Atlassian credentials), sooperset/mcp-atlassian exposes all tools to unauthenticated network clients, and the upload_attachment tool reads an attacker-supplied file_path with no path validation. Chained, an unauthenticated network attacker reads arbitrary files on the MCP server host (e.g. /proc/self/environ → the operator's Atlassian API token + .env secrets, ~/.ssh/id_rsa, /etc/passwd) by uploading them to an attacker-chosen page/issue and reading them back.

Details

Missing authentication (transport):

streamable-http binds 0.0.0.0 by default (src/mcp_atlassian/__init__.py:151).
The OAuth-proxy auth provider is opt-in (ATLASSIAN_OAUTH_PROXY_ENABLE, default false), so main_mcp is built with auth=None (src/mcp_atlassian/servers/main.py:724-731, 813-817).
UserTokenMiddleware._parse_auth_header sets auth_validation_error only for a malformed Authorization header; a request with no Authorization header passes through (main.py:416-446, 582-595).
_get_fetcher then falls through to the global credential fallback using the operator's .env Atlassian token (src/mcp_atlassian/servers/dependencies.py:644-676). check_write_access gates only on read-only mode, not auth → read and write tools reachable.

Arbitrary file read (sink):

upload_attachment's file_path flows unsanitized into open(file_path, 'rb') — Confluence src/mcp_atlassian/confluence/attachments.py:477 (from servers/confluence.py:1294-1369); Jira src/mcp_atlassian/jira/attachments.py:386 (from servers/jira.py:1609-1673). No validate_safe_path / allowlist (contrast the download flow, hardened after CVE-2026-27825).

Proof of Concept

# unauthenticated (no Authorization header) against a default streamable-http deployment:
tools/call upload_attachment { "file_path": "/proc/self/environ", "page_id": "<attacker-chosen>" }
# then read it back:
tools/call download_attachment { ... }   # returns the bytes (base64) -> operator's ATLASSIAN token + .env secrets

Impact

Unauthenticated arbitrary local file read on the MCP server host — including the operator's Atlassian API token and .env secrets — a boundary the Atlassian-scoped tool must not cross, plus unauthenticated use of every read/write Atlassian tool as the operator's (often admin) principal. Distinct from GHSA-xjgw-4wvw-rgm4 (file write via download_path) and GHSA-7r34-79r5-rcc9 (URL-header SSRF).

Suggested fix

Require authentication on the streamable-http transport by default (do not fall back to operator global credentials for unauthenticated requests); apply validate_safe_path/allowlist to file_path in upload_attachment as the download flow already does.

Affected

mcp-atlassian <= 0.21.1.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
mcp-atlassian	`< 0.22.0`	`0.22.0`

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-atlassian PyPI → `0.22.0`

pip

pip install --upgrade "mcp-atlassian>=0.22.0"

poetry

poetry add "mcp-atlassian>=0.22.0"

uv

uv add "mcp-atlassian>=0.22.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.6

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

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Weakness

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.

How to prevent it

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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
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.
Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

References

Advisories

Packages

Timeline

Sep 22, 2026 Published
Oct 1, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-g2r2-3j32-j27x MCP Atlassian: Reflected XSS in OAuth Setup Callback Handler	Medium	Also affects mcp-atlassian
GHSA-h7wj-5v37-59r2 MCP Atlassian: Path traversal in upload_attachment allows arbitrary file read (incomplete fix for CVE-2026-27825)	Medium	Also affects mcp-atlassian
GHSA-4596-2p6p-28cv MCP Atlassian: Insecure File Permissions on OAuth Token Storage	Medium	Also affects mcp-atlassian
GHSA-mfv2-4wvm-9pgp MCP Atlassian: Path traversal in upload_attachment allows arbitrary file read and exfiltration via MCP tool call	Medium	Also affects mcp-atlassian
GHSA-p6hp-93wp-fh6p MCP Atlassian: Path Traversal / Arbitrary File Read in confluence_upload_attachment MCP tool (incomplete fix of GHSA-xjgw-4wvw-rgm4)	High	Also affects mcp-atlassian
GHSA-6cr4-ccf3-x7h4 MCP Atlassian: Arbitrary file read via confluence_upload_attachment allows exfiltration of server credentials	High	Also affects mcp-atlassian
GHSA-mrq8-fv7v-hhjg MCP Atlassian: HTTP upload tools accept arbitrary server-local file paths	Medium	Also affects mcp-atlassian
GHSA-2xj6-xx86-cwwc MCP Atlassian: Arbitrary File Read & Exfiltration (Confused Deputy) in JIRA update_issue	High	Also affects mcp-atlassian

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