The MCP proxy restored the original backend from a session identifier while the current request could enter by another route. The scope parsing path admitted unverified claims, so a valid low-scope session and a permissive alternate route were enough for the controlled test to access the protected tool. The demonstration used selected route configurations…
Inspect the ClaimsCase · DiggingBeagle record
An MCP session restored through a weaker route retained a privileged backend
Agent Router session reuse could cross authorization boundaries between MCP routes.
Public disclosure: Nov 6, 2026
Mixed-strength MCP routes with reusable session IDs in affected Agent Router deployments.
Assessment profile
Assessment method- Setting
- research demonstration
- Exploitation
- demonstrated
- Evidence
- Grade B
- Remediation
- patch available
- AI role
- AGAINST AI
Basis and provenance
The isolated handler demonstration reached a test backend through a second weaker route. Real Envoy, OAuth and Kubernetes integration and customer exploitation remain unproven. An impact band remains unassigned because the available evidence does not establish a comparable severity score or verified numerical loss for this assessment.
Assessed Nov 8, 2026 using diggingbeagle.assessment/1.
Evidence basis: CLM-AGENTROUTER-MCP-SESSION-CROSSROUTE-01 · Agent Router cross-route MCP session authorization · Agent Router version 1.2.1 release
At a glance
Authorization must be checked against both the original session and the route actually carrying the request.
Read the implicationsThe demonstration used selected route configurations and a synthetic backend, not an audited production Envoy cluster. It does not establish anonymous internet access or malicious customer operations.
Limits and uncertaintyFull account
The MCP proxy restored the original backend from a session identifier while the current request could enter by another route. The scope parsing path admitted unverified claims, so a valid low-scope session and a permissive alternate route were enough for the controlled test to access the protected tool.
The demonstration used selected route configurations and a synthetic backend, not an audited production Envoy cluster. It does not establish anonymous internet access or malicious customer operations.
The attack combines two weak checks rather than one universal JWT bypass. A legitimate session started on OAuth-protected route A; a separate route B could then carry its session ID without binding the active route to the original route. The resumed session used claims parsed without signature verification under the original route configuration. The local demonstration exercised the proxy handler and a test backend, not a deployed Envoy and Kubernetes chain, so the configuration prerequisites remain essential to the finding.
Mechanism and trust boundary
- 01
Establish an MCP session on a lower-scope route.
- 02
Present the existing session ID through an alternative weaker authorization route.
- 03
Restore a more privileged backend without binding the active route to the session.
Claims & evidence
CLM-AGENTROUTER-MCP-SESSION-CROSSROUTE-01An Agent Router MCP session ID could restore a route established with stronger OAuth requirements while the request arrived through a different weaker route and unverified JWT-scope claims.supported
Basis: reported finding
- supportsAgent Router cross-route MCP session authorizationprimary disclosure
Summary; Proof of concept; Fixed behavior
Implications
Authorization must be checked against both the original session and the route actually carrying the request.
Controls and mitigations
- Upgrade to 1.2.1 and reject resumed sessions whose embedded route disagrees with the active Gateway route.
- Verify JWT authenticity, subject and scopes under the actual request route; test weaker-route and stronger-route combinations.
Unknowns and contradictions
- The demonstration used selected route configurations and a synthetic backend, not an audited production Envoy cluster. It does not establish anonymous internet access or malicious customer operations.
Sources and citation
Material revision history
- Nov 8, 2026 · Canonical change recorded · new in release · revision 229