Skip to content

[mcp-atlassian] Authentication bypass in HTTP transport: AtlassianOpaqueTokenVerifier accepts any non-empty token

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 10, 2026 in sooperset/mcp-atlassian • Updated Sep 22, 2026

Package

pip mcp-atlassian (pip)

Affected versions

< 0.22.0

Patched versions

0.22.0

Description

Description

mcp-atlassian deploys in two common patterns:

Pattern A (single-user, server-side credentials): operator sets
JIRA_USERNAME + JIRA_API_TOKEN (or CONFLUENCE_USERNAME + CONFLUENCE_API_TOKEN)
in environment variables. Server uses these to call Jira/Confluence.
This is the documented quickstart pattern.

Pattern B (multi-user, OAuth or per-request PAT): operator sets up OAuth
proxy or accepts per-user tokens via Authorization or service headers.

The authentication mechanism in HTTP transport has two issues that combine
to permit unauthenticated access to Pattern A deployments:

  1. AtlassianOpaqueTokenVerifier.verify_token() at
    src/mcp_atlassian/utils/token_verifier.py accepts any non-empty string
    as a valid token:

    async def verify_token(self, token: str) -> AccessToken | None:
        if not token:
            return None
        scopes = self.required_scopes or []
        return AccessToken(
            token=token,
            client_id="atlassian",
            scopes=scopes,
            expires_at=int(time.time()) + 86400 * 30,
        )
    

    The docstring documents this: "we accept non-empty tokens and attach
    the required scopes."

  2. The default deployment does NOT enable the OAuth proxy auth provider
    (OAUTH_PROXY_ENABLE_ENV defaults to false; main.py:726). When
    _build_auth_provider() returns None, FastMCP HTTP transport accepts
    requests with no authentication challenge.

  3. UserTokenMiddleware._parse_auth_header (main.py:601-664) extracts
    tokens from Authorization headers and stores them in scope state. If
    NO Authorization header is present (main.py:584-595), the middleware
    does not reject the request — it simply does not populate
    user_atlassian_token.

  4. JiraFetcher / ConfluenceFetcher fall back to JiraConfig.from_env()
    when no user-supplied token is in scope state. from_env() reads
    JIRA_API_TOKEN and JIRA_USERNAME from environment and uses them
    as the API credentials.

Composition: an attacker who reaches the HTTP transport (e.g., server
exposed on a port reachable from attacker — direct bind, Docker port
mapping, reverse proxy without auth, container in a network the attacker
joined) can:

  • Send no Authorization header at all, OR
  • Send any garbage Bearer token

Either request reaches tool handlers. The tool handlers, finding no
user-supplied token, use the server's env-var credentials to call
Jira / Confluence. The attacker has full operator-level access to the
operator's Atlassian instance.

This is the same vulnerability class as CVE-2026-27825 (Arctic Wolf,
unauthenticated RCE+SSRF in Atlassian MCP). The previous CVE was for a
different code path; this report concerns the auth verifier and middleware
behavior present in the current main branch.

**Steps to Reproduce**

Source-level demonstration:

1. Verify the verifier accepts arbitrary tokens:

       cd src/
       python -c "
       import asyncio
       from mcp_atlassian.utils.token_verifier import AtlassianOpaqueTokenVerifier
       v = AtlassianOpaqueTokenVerifier(required_scopes=['read:jira-work'])
       result = asyncio.run(v.verify_token('anything-at-all'))
       print('Accepted:', result is not None)
       print('Token stored:', result.token if result else None)
       print('Scopes granted:', result.scopes if result else None)
       "

   Expected:
       Accepted: True
       Token stored: anything-at-all
       Scopes granted: ['read:jira-work']

End-to-end (researcher's own Atlassian sandbox):

1. Start mcp-atlassian in HTTP mode against a researcher-owned Atlassian
   Cloud instance with JIRA_API_TOKEN configured:

       export JIRA_URL=https://researcher.atlassian.net
       export JIRA_USERNAME=researcher@example.com
       export JIRA_API_TOKEN=<researcher's-real-token>
       export MCP_TRANSPORT=streamable-http
       export PORT=3000
       # Do NOT set OAUTH_PROXY_ENABLE_ENV — leave it default (false)
       mcp-atlassian

2. From another machine (or curl on localhost), with no auth:

       curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/mcp \
            -H "content-type: application/json" \
            -H "accept: application/json, text/event-stream" \
            -d '{
              "jsonrpc":"2.0", "id":1, "method":"tools/call",
              "params":{
                "name":"jira_get_issue",
                "arguments":{"issue_key":"PROJ-1"}
              }
            }'

   Expected: returns the Jira issue payload — using the server's
   JIRA_API_TOKEN to authenticate to Atlassian. No client-side token
   provided.

3. Optional: same call with a garbage Bearer for completeness:

       curl ... -H "Authorization: Bearer anything-at-all" ...

   Same result.
   
   
   **Impact**:
   
   Attacker profile: any party with network reach to the HTTP transport.
No credentials, no prior account, no privileged position required.

Typical deployment patterns at risk:

  - Docker compose with port exposed (very common in mcp-atlassian's
    docs and community deployments)
  - Cloud-deployed MCP server behind a load balancer where the LB
    doesn't enforce auth (delegates to the application)
  - Internal corporate network where any employee can reach the server
  - Misconfigured Kubernetes ingress
  - Tunneled MCP server via ngrok / Cloudflare Tunnel for development
    that gets left exposed

Security impact after exploitation:

1. Full Jira read access. Every project, every issue, every comment,
   every attachment, every user — using the operator's API token.

2. Full Jira write access. Create, edit, delete issues. Add comments
   under the operator's identity. Move issues across boards. Bulk-edit.

3. Full Confluence read/write access. Same surface — pages, spaces,
   attachments, permissions, restricted spaces visible to the operator's
   identity.

4. Audit trail names the operator. Every API call is signed with the
   operator's token. From Atlassian's logging side, the operator is the
   actor — covering the attacker's tracks and shifting blame.

5. Pivot. Attachments often contain credentials, infrastructure
   diagrams, customer data. Confluence pages often store secrets in
   plaintext under the assumption of access control.

6. Persistence. Attacker can create new Jira webhooks, automation rules,
   or Confluence integrations that survive beyond the MCP session.

CVE-2026-27825 (Arctic Wolf, May 2026) was scored CVSS 9.8 Critical for
unauth RCE+SSRF in this same code surface. This report is the auth-bypass
component of the same class against the current main branch.


**Suggested Fix**

The most direct fix is the standard MCP-server-with-env-creds pattern:

  1. When OAUTH_PROXY_ENABLE_ENV is not set, REFUSE to start the HTTP
     transport unless an explicit "single-user mode" flag is set:

       SINGLE_USER_MODE = is_env_truthy("MCP_ATLASSIAN_SINGLE_USER")
       if MCP_TRANSPORT == "streamable-http" and not auth_provider and not SINGLE_USER_MODE:
           raise SystemExit(
               "HTTP transport requires either OAUTH_PROXY_ENABLE=true "
               "or MCP_ATLASSIAN_SINGLE_USER=true (acknowledges that env "
               "credentials will be used for any incoming request)."
           )

  2. Even with SINGLE_USER_MODE, bind the HTTP transport to 127.0.0.1
     by default unless the operator overrides with an explicit
     MCP_ATLASSIAN_BIND_PUBLIC=true.

  3. Document the multi-tenant pattern as requiring OAuth proxy or
     per-request user-token middleware with a verifier that actually
     verifies (not the opaque-accept-anything stub).

  4. Replace AtlassianOpaqueTokenVerifier with a verifier that performs
     a token-info or whoami call to Atlassian. The fact that Atlassian
     tokens are opaque does not preclude verification — a
     /rest/api/3/myself call validates the token and returns the
     associated user, which the verifier can attach to the AccessToken's
     scopes and user_id fields.

Defense in depth: the README quickstart should not encourage exposing
the HTTP transport without auth. The docker-compose.yml in the repo
should bind to 127.0.0.1 only by default.
### References
- https://github.com/sooperset/mcp-atlassian/security/advisories/GHSA-wrhw-j3f9-8vc6
- https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-77244
- https://github.com/sooperset/mcp-atlassian/pull/1448
- https://github.com/sooperset/mcp-atlassian/commit/b041733473f95119dd539542a43c280737a8e460
- https://github.com/sooperset/mcp-atlassian/releases/tag/v0.22.0
@sooperset sooperset published to sooperset/mcp-atlassian Jul 10, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Sep 22, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 22, 2026
Reviewed Sep 22, 2026
Last updated Sep 22, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(18th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct. Learn more on MITRE.

Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm

The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect. Learn more on MITRE.

Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-77244

GHSA ID

GHSA-wrhw-j3f9-8vc6

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.