
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: < 2.1.0
Patched in 2.1.0
Details
The rmcp crate's StreamableHttpClientTransport forwards caller-supplied custom HTTP headers (such as X-API-Key, X-Auth-Token, Api-Key) to cross-origin redirect targets. The default_http_client() function builds a reqwest::Client without a redirect policy override, so the default limited(10) policy follows 307/308 redirects and forwards all per-request headers except Authorization, Cookie, and Proxy-Authorization. Custom auth headers injected via StreamableHttpClientTransportConfig.custom_headers are not classified as sensitive and are therefore forwarded verbatim to any redirect target — including an attacker-controlled server.
github.com/modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdkrmcpc330fede90e4729c234f8e87fdbc5ea27a1dd10c (HEAD, 2026-05-21)File: crates/rmcp/src/transport/common/reqwest/streamable_http_client.rs
Root cause 1 — no redirect policy override:
// Lines 302-307
fn default_http_client() -> reqwest::Client {
reqwest::Client::builder()
.pool_max_idle_per_host(0)
.build()
.expect("failed to build default reqwest client")
}
No .redirect(reqwest::redirect::Policy::none()) call. The default limited(10) policy follows up to 10 redirects and, on cross-origin redirects, strips only Authorization, Cookie, and Proxy-Authorization.
Root cause 2 — custom headers not sensitivity-marked:
// Lines 26-35
fn apply_custom_headers(
mut builder: reqwest::RequestBuilder,
custom_headers: HashMap<HeaderName, HeaderValue>,
) -> Result<reqwest::RequestBuilder, StreamableHttpError<reqwest::Error>> {
for (name, value) in custom_headers {
validate_custom_header(&name).map_err(StreamableHttpError::ReservedHeaderConflict)?;
builder = builder.header(name, value); // no sensitivity marker
}
Ok(builder)
}
Headers added via RequestBuilder::header() are forwarded to redirect targets because reqwest only strips headers from its own sensitive-header list (Authorization, Cookie, Proxy-Authorization).
Exposed API: StreamableHttpClientTransportConfig.custom_headers (line 1070), intended for custom auth headers:
/// Custom HTTP headers to include with every request
pub custom_headers: HashMap<HeaderName, HeaderValue>,
custom_headers with an API key for the MCP server:
let config = StreamableHttpClientTransportConfig::with_uri("https://mcp.example.com/mcp")
.custom_headers([(HeaderName::from_static("x-api-key"),
HeaderValue::from_static("my-secret-key"))].into());
mcp.example.com to return 307 Temporary Redirect to https://attacker.example.net/capture.rmcp follows the redirect, forwarding X-API-Key: my-secret-key to attacker.example.net.The auth_header path (StreamableHttpClientTransportConfig::auth_header()) sets the value via builder.bearer_auth(auth_header), which maps to the Authorization header — stripped by reqwest on cross-origin redirects. That path is not affected. Only custom_headers is vulnerable.
In default_http_client(), disable automatic redirect following:
fn default_http_client() -> reqwest::Client {
reqwest::Client::builder()
.pool_max_idle_per_host(0)
.redirect(reqwest::redirect::Policy::none()) // <-- add this
.build()
.expect("failed to build default reqwest client")
}
The transport can then inspect 3xx responses and decide whether to follow, stripping sensitive headers before doing so. Alternatively, use reqwest::ClientBuilder::connection_verbose or per-request Request::headers_mut() to remove auth headers before the redirect is followed.
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.50%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 42.8% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 11/1/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.