GHSA-6529-c226-h328 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.1) Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in mcp-atlassian. A fix is available for mcp-atlassian — see the affected versions and patch details below.
MCP Atlassian: SSRF redirect protection missing for basic-auth and OAuth authentication branches
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-6529-c226-h328.
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
GHSA-6529-c226-h328 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
mcp-atlassianReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
_make_ssrf_safe_hook() blocks HTTP redirects to private/internal IPs by validating the Location header before the client follows a 3xx response. The problem is that this hook is only attached in one of three authentication branches — the header-PAT path. Basic auth and OAuth branches skip it entirely, so if the connected Atlassian server returns a redirect to something like http://169.254.169.254/, the requests session follows it without complaint.
This is an incomplete fix for GHSA-7r34-79r5-rcc9. The hook works fine when it's there — it just isn't there for most production auth configurations.
Details
In src/mcp_atlassian/servers/dependencies.py, three branches construct a fetcher and call _create_and_validate(). Only Branch 1 passes attach_ssrf_hook=True:
# Branch 1 (header PAT) — hook attached
return _create_and_validate(request, spec, header_config, "header_pat",
attach_ssrf_hook=True)
# Branch 2 (basic auth) — hook missing
return _create_and_validate(request, spec, user_config, "basic",
user_email=user_email)
# Branch 3 (OAuth/PAT) — hook missing
return _create_and_validate(request, spec, user_config, "oauth_pat",
user_email=user_email)
attach_ssrf_hook defaults to False, so branches 2 and 3 silently skip the protection. The hook itself (_make_ssrf_safe_hook) is straightforward — it checks response.is_redirect, grabs the Location header, and calls validate_url_for_ssrf() to reject private IPs. It works correctly when present.
Typical attack flow:
- Attacker controls or compromises an Atlassian instance (Cloud or Server)
- MCP server connects using basic auth or OAuth credentials (most production setups)
- Atlassian returns
302 Location: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/ - The unprotected session follows the redirect
- AWS IAM credentials (or other internal service data) are returned to the attacker
PoC
Tested on commit d8bc786 (v0.21.1). No real credentials needed.
from unittest.mock import MagicMock
import requests
from mcp_atlassian.servers.dependencies import _make_ssrf_safe_hook
from mcp_atlassian.utils.urls import validate_url_for_ssrf
from mcp_atlassian.jira import JiraFetcher
from mcp_atlassian.jira.config import JiraConfig
config = JiraConfig(
url="https://attacker.atlassian.net",
auth_type="basic",
username="[email protected]",
api_token="victim-token",
)
fetcher = JiraFetcher(config=config)
session = fetcher.jira._session
hooks = session.hooks.get("response", [])
print("hooks on basic-auth session:", [h.__name__ for h in hooks] or "none")
fake_redirect = MagicMock(spec=requests.Response)
fake_redirect.is_redirect = True
fake_redirect.headers = {"Location": "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/"}
blocked = False
for h in hooks:
try:
h(fake_redirect)
except ValueError as e:
blocked = True
print("blocked:", e)
if not blocked:
print("redirect to 169.254.169.254 not blocked on basic-auth session")
# show header-PAT branch does block it
hook = _make_ssrf_safe_hook(validate_url_for_ssrf)
try:
hook(fake_redirect)
except ValueError as e:
print("header-PAT branch blocks:", e)
Output:
<img width="2490" height="214" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c7d9d7e2-4c37-4abd-95a3-4ddd9f6bd735" />$ uv run python3 /tmp/test.py
hooks on basic-auth session: none
redirect to 169.254.169.254 not blocked on basic-auth session
header-PAT branch blocks: Redirect blocked (SSRF): Blocked IP address: 169.254.169.254 (non-global)
Impact
Basic auth and OAuth cover most production Atlassian Cloud deployments, so this affects the majority of HTTP-mode multi-user setups. An attacker with control over the Atlassian server can redirect MCP server requests to internal infrastructure — cloud metadata endpoints, internal Kubernetes API, databases, or any service reachable from the MCP server's network.
The fix is one line per affected branch: pass attach_ssrf_hook=True to _create_and_validate() in branches 2 and 3, the same way branch 1 already does.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | mcp-atlassian | all versions | 0.22.0pip install --upgrade 'mcp-atlassian==0.22.0' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for mcp-atlassian, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update mcp-atlassian to 0.22.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-6529-c226-h328 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-6529-c226-h328 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-6529-c226-h328. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-6529-c226-h328 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-6529-c226-h328 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.