MCP TypeScript server SDK: Shared transport or server instances delivered one HTTP client's messages to another
Summary
In affected versions, an MCP server reached over HTTP could deliver one client's responses and notifications to another client. This happened when clients shared one stateless transport, or one
McpServer or
Server instance.
Messages were matched to a connection by JSON-RPC id alone. SDK clients number requests from 0, so ids collide in normal use.
Am I affected?
Yes, if more than one client can reach your HTTP endpoint and your code creates the transport or the server once at startup, instead of once per request or per session. Until this release, the README examples of
@modelcontextprotocol/hono,
express,
fastify and
node showed that pattern.
Affected versions: @modelcontextprotocol/server 2.0.0 through 2.2.0.
Not affected:
createMcpHandler() with a factory that builds a new server on every call- stdio servers
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.26.0 and later
Fix
Upgrade to
@modelcontextprotocol/server 2.3.0 or later.
You also need to change your code. The SDK now refuses to be shared, so an affected app fails requests after upgrading: a second connect() rejects with ALREADY_CONNECTED, and a stateless transport rejects its second request.
Change to one of these:
createMcpHandler(): pass a factory that builds a new McpServer on every call.- Per request: build a new
McpServer and a new transport inside the request handler.
- Per session: set
sessionIdGenerator and keep one McpServer and one transport per session.
If you cannot upgrade yet, the same change fixes affected versions.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.7 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it