CVE-2026-73846

mediumpriority · track · 0OT risk · elevatedEPSS 0.002 · 9 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.19% (9th) EPSS
CVSS 6.5 · medium
Is it mine?
2 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
3 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · osv

EPSS · scored 2026-10-26

CKAN MCP Server is a tool for querying CKAN open data portals. Prior to 0.4.112, canonicalizeParams in src/utils/cache.ts serializes request parameters with unescaped ampersand, equals-sign, and vertical-bar delimiters, allowing different logical parameter sets used by buildCacheKey to collide and an attacker to prime a shared cache with a response for a victim's distinct query. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.112.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

6.5
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode

v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:Nsecondary · security-advisories@github.comexploitability 2.2 · impact 4.2
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.16mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Exploitation: poc · Automatable: no · Technical Impact: partialcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (2)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

advisories (1)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-78x9-fhhx-v2g6CKAN MCP Server: Cache-key canonicalization collision enables cache confusion / poisoning2026-09-03ghsa · osvUS

    ## Summary The response cache derives its key from an ambiguous string serialization of the request parameters. `canonicalizeParams` joins sorted `${key}=${value}` pairs with `&` and does not escape `&`, `=`, or the `|` field separators used in `buildCacheKey`. Two **different** logical parameter sets can therefore serialize to the **same** key and share one cache entry. Because the cached value is whatever the upstream returned for whichever request populated the entry first, an attacker can prime a colliding key so a victim's distinct query (same `server_url`) is served the attacker's cached response. ## Affected code ```js // src/utils/cache.ts export function canonicalizeParams(params) { const keys = Object.keys(params).sort(); const pairs = []; for (const key of keys) { const value = params[key]; if (value === undefined || value === null) continue; const serialized = typeof value === "object" ? JSON.stringify(value) : String(value); pairs.push(`${key}=${serialized}`); // value not escaped } return pairs.join("&"); // '&' delimiter, injectable } export async function buildCacheKey(serverUrl, action, params) { const raw = `${serverUrl}|${action}|${canonicalizeParams(params)}`; // '|' also unescaped return sha1Hex(raw); } ``` Confirmed collisions (identical key): - `{ q: "budget", rows: 10 }` ≡ `{ q: "budget&rows=10" }` → both canonicalize to `q=budget&rows=10` - `{ filters: { a: "b" } }` ≡ `{ filters: '{"a":"b"}' }` → both canonicalize to `filters={"a":"b"}` (object-vs-string ambiguity) An attacker can reproduce **any** target canonical string by injecting it into the alphabetically-first parameter, so the collision is general, not incidental. ## Impact - **Cache poisoning / confusion.** On a shared cache (caching is enabled by default; the Cloudflare Workers deployment uses the shared `caches.default`, and a Node HTTP instance shares one in-process LRU across all clients), an attacker primes a colliding entry so that another client's genuinely different query receives the attacker-chosen response for the same portal. - **Integrity of results.** Victims receive data for a query they did not make (wrong dataset list, wrong record set), undermining trust in tool output. - **Chains with indirect prompt injection (advisory #07).** The attacker's colliding request can be one whose upstream response surfaces an attacker-controlled dataset (with malicious `notes`/`title`); the victim's benign query then serves that poisoned content to the model — delivering prompt injection via the cache, without the victim ever querying the malicious dataset. Confidentiality impact is low (same-portal public data); the primary damage is integrity. `AC:H` reflects the need for caching to be enabled and a shared instance plus priming before the victim's request populates the entry. ## Proof of concept `poc/cache-collision-poc.mjs` primes a single-param request and shows a victim's distinct two-param request being served the attacker-primed entry: ``` attacker canonical : q=budget&rows=10 victim canonical : q=budget&rows=10 same cache key : true victim served from cache: true victim RECEIVED : RESULT_FOR({"q":"budget&rows=10"}) victim EXPECTED : RESULT_FOR({"q":"budget","rows":10}) ``` ## Remediation - Build the cache key from an unambiguous, injection-proof encoding: hash a structured, canonical JSON (with typed values) or percent-encode/escape each key and value before joining, and use a separator that cannot appear in the encoded fields. Include a type tag so `{a:{...}}` (object) and `{a:"..."}` (string) never coincide. - Consider partitioning the cache per client/tenant on shared deployments so one client cannot influence another's entries.

06

also known as (2)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

07

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-08-14modified 2026-08-17
08

references (9)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan