CVE-2026-46519 — mcp-server-kubernetes
HIGHCVE-2026-46519 is a high-severity (CVSS 8.8) CWE-863 vulnerability in mcp-server-kubernetes. A fix is available for mcp-server-kubernetes — see the affected versions and patch details below.
mcp-server-kubernetes Affected By Tool Access Control Bypass: Presentation-Layer Filtering Without Execution-Layer Enforcement
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-46519.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-46519 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 379,145 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.
mcp-server-kubernetesnpmDescription
Summary
mcp-server-kubernetes exposes three environment variables (ALLOW_ONLY_READONLY_TOOLS, ALLOW_ONLY_NON_DESTRUCTIVE_TOOLS, ALLOWED_TOOLS) documented as access controls for restricting which Kubernetes operations are available. These controls are enforced at the tool discovery layer (tools/list) but not at the execution layer (tools/call). Any client that knows a tool name can invoke it directly regardless of the configured restriction mode. The access control was effectively cosmetic.
Fixed in v3.6.0.
Impact
An attacker or misconfigured AI agent with network access to the MCP server's HTTP endpoint could invoke any Kubernetes tool regardless of the restriction mode configured by the operator -- including kubectl_delete, exec_in_pod, kubectl_generic, and node_management.
The project explicitly supports and documents multi-client HTTP deployment scenarios (Streamable HTTP and SSE transports, in-cluster deployments, Codex CLI and Gemini CLI integrations). In these deployments, operators relied on the tool restriction env vars to enforce least-privilege access across users or roles. The bypass invalidated that model entirely.
Severity scales with the Kubernetes service account's permissions. In environments where the MCP server runs with cluster-admin (common in dev/staging), this is equivalent to full cluster compromise for any client that can reach the endpoint.
The MCP_AUTH_TOKEN / X-MCP-AUTH mechanism controls who can reach the endpoint but provides no per-tool authorization. An authenticated client restricted to ALLOWED_TOOLS=kubectl_get could still invoke kubectl_delete after authentication.
Root Cause
In src/index.ts, the ListToolsRequestSchema handler applied the configured filtering logic before returning available tools. The CallToolRequestSchema handler dispatched directly by tool name with no equivalent check -- every tool was reachable unconditionally.
Proof of Concept
Tested across all three restriction modes against a live kind cluster. In each case, kubectl_delete was absent from tools/list but executed successfully via a direct tools/call request:
curl -s http://<HOST>:3003/mcp \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-H 'Accept: application/json, text/event-stream' \
-d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":2,"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"kubectl_delete","arguments":{"resourceType":"pod","name":"test-pod","namespace":"default"}}}'
Result: {"result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"pod \"test-pod\" deleted\n"}]}}
Confirmed across ALLOW_ONLY_READONLY_TOOLS=true, ALLOW_ONLY_NON_DESTRUCTIVE_TOOLS=true, and ALLOWED_TOOLS=kubectl_get.
Remediation
The fix applies the same filtering logic from ListToolsRequestSchema at the start of the CallToolRequestSchema handler, returning an error for any tool call outside the active allowed set. Fixed in v3.6.0.
Credit
Discovered by Francisco Rosales of Manifold Security, coordinated by Ax Sharma, Head of Research at Manifold Security.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | mcp-server-kubernetes | all versions | 3.6.0npm install mcp-server-kubernetes@3.6.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for mcp-server-kubernetes, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update mcp-server-kubernetes to 3.6.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-46519 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2026-46519 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2026-46519. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-46519 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2026-46519 across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.