Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.20% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-63127High confidence
RMCP: Missing Resource Field Validation in OAuth Protected Resource Metadata Discovery
modelcontextprotocol · rust-sdk
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-33F5-2C5Q-WGWJ ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
8.2HighCVSS 3.1
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productHigh technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Critical, raised one band.upgradedsince 16 Sep 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs modelcontextprotocol rust-sdk and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Red Hat Product Security: 4 affected or under-investigation product states without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
Open-source package ranges1 source-attributed range
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| rustrmcp | < 2.0.0 | 2.0.0 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 16 Sep 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-63127 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityrmcp: RMCP: Token impersonation via missing OAuth resource field validation
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- goose as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- goose.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- goose as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9
- goose.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9
- Summary
- A flaw was found in rmcp, a Rust SDK for the Model Context Protocol. The OAuth implementation in rmcp omits the RFC 9728 resource field from ResourceServerMetadata. This allows a malicious Model Context Protocol (MCP) server to publish metadata for a different legitimate MCP resource. Consequently, a victim connecting to the malicious server may obtain a legitimate access token, which the client then sends to the malicious server. This enables the attacker to capture the token and impersonate the victim against the legitimate MCP resource within the token's granted scopes, leading to unauthorized access and information disclosure.
- Remediation
- Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
RMCP is an official Rust SDK for the Model Context Protocol. Prior to 2.0.0, the rmcp crate's OAuth implementation in crates/rmcp/src/transport/auth.rs omits the RFC 9728 resource field from ResourceServerMetadata and allows discover_oauth_server_via_resource_metadata to use protected-resource metadata without confirming that the returned resource identifier exactly matches the configured MCP server. A malicious MCP server can publish metadata for a different legitimate MCP resource and its authorization server, causing a victim who connects and completes the authorization flow to obtain a legitimate access token that the client subsequently sends to the malicious server. The attacker can capture the token and impersonate the victim against the legitimate MCP resource within the token's granted scopes. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.
What
RMCP is an official Rust SDK for the Model Context Protocol. Prior to 2.0.0, the rmcp crate's OAuth implementation in crates/rmcp/src/transport/auth.rs omits the RFC 9728 resource field from ResourceServerMetadata and allows discover_oauth_server_via_resource_metadata to use protected-resource metadata without confirming that the returned resource identifier exactly matches the configured MCP server. A malicious MCP server can publish metadata for a different legitimate MCP resource and its authorization server, causing a victim who connects and completes the authorization flow to obtain a legitimate access token that the client subsequently sends to the malicious server. The attacker can capture the token and impersonate the victim against the legitimate MCP resource within the token's granted scopes. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.
Why
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
RMCP is an official Rust SDK for the Model Context Protocol. Prior to 2.0.0, the rmcp crate's OAuth implementation in crates/rmcp/src/transport/auth.rs omits the RFC 9728 resource field from ResourceServerMetadata and allows discover_oauth_server_via_resource_metadata to use protected-resource metadata without confirming that the returned resource identifier exactly matches the configured MCP server. A malicious MCP server can publish metadata for a different legitimate MCP resource and its authorization server, causing a victim who connects and completes the authorization flow to obtain a legitimate access token that the client subsequently sends to the malicious server. The attacker can capture the token and impersonate the victim against the legitimate MCP resource within the token's granted scopes. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.
Why
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-345 ↗
CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- Fixed
- 2.0.0.
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 16 Sept 2026 · Last source change 16 Sept 2026, 15:39 UTC · CWE-345 · Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-17
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-80824
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-80824 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-80824"}
- Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.CVE.org ↗
- Before
- No public exploit
- After
- Public exploit reference
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.