modelcontextprotocol registry up to 1.7.8 OCI Image failing open

CVSS Meta Temp Score
CVSS is a standardized scoring system to determine possibilities of attacks. The Temp Score considers temporal factors like disclosure, exploit and countermeasures. The unique Meta Score calculates the average score of different sources to provide a normalized scoring system.
Current Exploit Price (≈)
Our analysts are monitoring exploit markets and are in contact with vulnerability brokers. The range indicates the observed or calculated exploit price to be seen on exploit markets. A good indicator to understand the monetary effort required for and the popularity of an attack.
CTI Interest Score
Our Cyber Threat Intelligence team is monitoring different web sites, mailing lists, exploit markets and social media networks. The CTI Interest Score identifies the interest of attackers and the security community for this specific vulnerability in real-time. A high score indicates an elevated risk to be targeted for this vulnerability.
3.8$0-$5k0.00

Summaryinfo

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in modelcontextprotocol registry up to 1.7.8. The affected element is an unknown function of the component OCI Image Handler. Performing a manipulation results in failing open. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-45781. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

Detailsinfo

A vulnerability was found in modelcontextprotocol registry up to 1.7.8. It has been classified as problematic. This affects an unknown functionality of the component OCI Image Handler. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a failing open vulnerability. CWE is classifying the issue as CWE-636. When the product encounters an error condition or failure, its design requires it to fall back to a state that is less secure than other options that are available, such as selecting the weakest encryption algorithm or using the most permissive access control restrictions. This is going to have an impact on integrity. The summary by CVE is:

The MCP Registry provides MCP clients with a list of MCP servers, like an app store for MCP servers. Prior to 1.7.9, OCI ownership validation skips label-match check when upstream OCI registry returns HTTP 429, letting any authenticated publisher bind their io.github.<user>/* namespace to OCI images they do not control. internal/validators/registries/oci.go:104-119 fails open on http.StatusTooManyRequests: when the registry's anonymous fetch to the upstream OCI registry is rate-limited, ValidateOCI returns nil and the publish is accepted without ever running the io.modelcontextprotocol.server.name label-match check at lines 122-141. That label check is the only cross-system ownership proof the registry applies to OCI packages — every other registry type (NPM, PyPI, NuGet, MCPB) treats a non-200 upstream response as a hard error. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.7.9.

The advisory is shared at github.com. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-45781 since 05/13/2026. The exploitability is told to be easy. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. Neither technical details nor an exploit are publicly available.

Upgrading to version 1.7.9 eliminates this vulnerability.

The vulnerability is also documented in the vulnerability database at EUVD (EUVD-2026-30489). If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.

Productinfo

Vendor

Name

Version

Website

CPE 2.3info

CPE 2.2info

CVSSv4info

VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CVSSv3info

VulDB Meta Base Score: 3.9
VulDB Meta Temp Score: 3.8

VulDB Base Score: 4.3
VulDB Temp Score: 4.1
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CNA Base Score: 3.5
CNA Vector (GitHub_M): 🔒

CVSSv2info

AVACAuCIA
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
VectorComplexityAuthenticationConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

Exploitinginfo

Class: Failing open
CWE: CWE-636
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒

Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes

Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined

EPSS Score: 🔒
EPSS Percentile: 🔒

Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒

0-DayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
TodayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

Threat Intelligenceinfo

Interest: 🔍
Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍

Countermeasuresinfo

Recommended: Upgrade
Status: 🔍

0-Day Time: 🔒

Upgrade: registry 1.7.9

Timelineinfo

05/13/2026 CVE reserved
05/15/2026 +2 days Advisory disclosed
05/15/2026 +0 days VulDB entry created
05/19/2026 +4 days VulDB entry last update

Sourcesinfo

Product: github.com

Advisory: GHSA-2v5f-5r6w-p67r
Status: Confirmed

CVE: CVE-2026-45781 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-45781
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-364029
EUVD: 🔒

Entryinfo

Created: 05/15/2026 04:25
Updated: 05/19/2026 16:30
Changes: 05/15/2026 04:25 (64), 05/16/2026 08:59 (1), 05/19/2026 16:30 (1)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103

If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.

Discussion

No comments yet. Languages: en.

Please log in to comment.

Do you want to use VulDB in your project?

Use the official API to access entries easily!