VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-54282: Starlette · Unvalidated request path concatenated into authority poisons request.url.hostname

Affects mcp-google-sheetsSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-54282· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low : upgrade to 0.6.3_2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.6.3_2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade mcp-google-sheets to 0.6.3_2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewmcp-google-sheets`pkg:brew/mcp-google-sheets`Other threats	Affected >=0.5.1 <0.6.3_2	Fixed in 0.6.3_2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Summary In affected versions, the HTTP request path is not validated before being used to reconstruct `request.url`. Because `request.url` is rebuilt by concatenating `{scheme}://{host}{path}` and re-parsing the result, a path that does not begin with `/` (for example `@google.com`) moves the authority boundary during re-parsing, so `request.url.hostname` and `request.url.netloc` become attacker-controlled. Code that reads `request.url.hostname` (rather than the `Host` header or `scope`) can therefore be misled into trusting an attacker-supplied host. ### Details When a client requests a path that does not start with `/`: ```http GET @google.com HTTP/1.1 Host: localhost ``` affected versions reconstruct the URL as `http://localhost@google.com`. Per [RFC 3986 §3.2.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-3.2.1), the substring before `@` in the authority is `userinfo`, so re-parsing yields `username = "localhost"` and `hostname = "google.com"`, with an empty path: ```text request.url == "http://localhost@google.com" request.url.hostname == "google.com" request.url.path == "" ``` The root cause is that the path is concatenated directly after the host without a separating `/`, and without validating that it begins with one. Only the `Host` header was validated when constructing `request.url`; the path was not. This requires an ASGI server that forwards a request-target lacking a leading `/` into `scope["path"]`. ### Impact Any application running an affected version that uses `request.url`, `request.url.netloc`, or `request.url.hostname` for a security-sensitive decision (host-based authorization, redirect/callback base, SSRF target, cache key, audit log) may be affected, when no fronting proxy or load balancer rejects the malformed request-target first. Note that this is less exploitable than [GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mr](https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/security/advisories/GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mr): there, the poison is carried in the `Host` header, so the real path still routes to a valid endpoint while `request.url.path` lies. Here, the poison must be carried in the path itself, and that path (`@google.com`) does not match any registered route, so routing returns `404` and no endpoint handler runs. The exposure is limited to code that reads `request.url` before routing - notably middleware - or in 404/exception handlers. ### Mitigation Upgrade to a patched version, which prevents the request path from crossing into the URL authority. The request above instead yields `http://localhost/@google.com` with `request.url.hostname == "localhost"`.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…