Skip to content

MCP-Framework: Unbounded memory allocation in readRequestBody allows denial of service via HTTP transport

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 16, 2026 in QuantGeekDev/mcp-framework • Updated Apr 24, 2026

Package

npm mcp-framework (npm)

Affected versions

<= 0.2.21

Patched versions

0.2.22

Description

Summary

The readRequestBody() function in src/transports/http/server.ts concatenates HTTP request body chunks into a string with no size limit, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to crash the server via memory exhaustion with a single large HTTP POST request.

Details

File: src/transports/http/server.ts, lines 224-240

private async readRequestBody(req: IncomingMessage): Promise<any> {
    return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
      let body = '';
      req.on('data', (chunk) => {
        body += chunk.toString();   // No size limit
      });
      req.on('end', () => {
        try {
          const parsed = body ? JSON.parse(body) : null;
          resolve(parsed);
        } catch (error) {
          reject(error);
        }
      });
      req.on('error', reject);
    });
  }

A maxMessageSize configuration value exists in DEFAULT_HTTP_STREAM_CONFIG (4MB, defined in src/transports/http/types.ts line 124) but is never enforced in readRequestBody(). This creates a false sense of security.

PoC

Local testing with 50MB POST payloads against the vulnerable readRequestBody() function:

Trial Payload RSS growth Time Result
1 50MB +197MB 42ms Vulnerable
2 50MB +183MB 46ms Vulnerable
3 50MB +15MB 43ms Vulnerable
4 50MB +14MB 32ms Vulnerable
5 50MB +65MB 38ms Vulnerable

Reproducibility: 5/5 (100%)

Impact

  • Denial of Service: Any mcp-framework HTTP server can be crashed by a single large POST request to /mcp
  • No authentication required: readRequestBody() executes before any auth checks (auth is opt-in, default is no auth)
  • Dead config: maxMessageSize exists but is never enforced, giving a false sense of security
  • Affected: All applications using mcp-framework HttpStreamTransport (60,000 weekly npm downloads)

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Suggested CVSS 3.1: 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

Suggested Fix

Enforce maxMessageSize in readRequestBody():

private async readRequestBody(req: IncomingMessage): Promise<any> {
    const maxSize = this._config.maxMessageSize || 4 * 1024 * 1024;
    return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
      let body = '';
      let size = 0;
      req.on('data', (chunk) => {
        size += chunk.length;
        if (size > maxSize) {
          req.destroy();
          reject(new Error('Request body too large'));
          return;
        }
        body += chunk.toString();
      });
      // ...
    });
  }

Disclosure Timeline

This report follows coordinated disclosure. I request a 90-day window before public disclosure.

Reporter: Raza Sharif, CyberSecAI Ltd (contact@agentsign.dev)

References

@QuantGeekDev QuantGeekDev published to QuantGeekDev/mcp-framework Apr 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 16, 2026
Reviewed Apr 16, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Apr 16, 2026
Last updated Apr 24, 2026

Severity

High

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA: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.
(39th percentile)

Weaknesses

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-39313

GHSA ID

GHSA-353c-v8x9-v7c3

Credits

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