MCP TypeScript client SDK: HTTP client transports and OAuth requests followed cross-origin redirects and re-sent custom headers and request bodies
Summary
In affected versions, the SDK's HTTP client transports and OAuth requests followed redirects to any origin.
If an MCP server or authorization server redirected a request to another origin, that origin received custom request headers (such as an X-API-Key set in requestInit.headers) and the mcp-session-id header. On a 307 or 308 it also received the request body, including OAuth token requests with their refresh_token and client_secret.
On current runtimes fetch already drops the Authorization header across origins.
Am I affected?
Yes, if your application uses
StreamableHTTPClientTransport,
SSEClientTransport, or the SDK's OAuth client functions such as
auth(). stdio clients are not affected.
Affected versions:
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk all versions through 1.31.0@modelcontextprotocol/client 2.0.0 through 2.2.0
Fix
Upgrade to:
- 1.x:
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.32.0 or later
- 2.x:
@modelcontextprotocol/client 2.3.0 or later
Redirects are now followed only within the same origin, and not at all in browsers. If your MCP server or authorization server redirects to another origin on purpose, configure the final URL instead. Setting redirectPolicy: 'follow' on a transport restores the old behaviour and the exposure.
If a redirect may have reached a host you do not control, rotate the API keys and client_secret your application held and revoke its tokens.
If you cannot upgrade yet, pass a fetch that refuses redirects, for example (url, init) => fetch(url, { ...init, redirect: 'error' }).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it