跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 15:33 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 16:20 — 2026-11-08 16:20(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-08 15:33最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 15:31(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02611

Where Does MCP Security End? A Three-Tier Mitigation Mapping Framework for the OWASP MCP Top 10

Christopher Krakauer, Andreas Schaad

原文摘要

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has become a leading standard for connecting Large Language Models (LLMs) to external tools, software, and data sources. MCP architecture favors ease of integration over security, blending the data and control planes into a single natural language channel. This introduces confused deputy and prompt injection vulnerabilities that cannot be completely mitigated in the software development lifecycle (SDLC) of an MCP server. Structured security guidance for server developers has been outpaced by this adoption trend, leaving them without a clear way to identify where vulnerabilities can be addressed at the server layer and where architectural constraints create hard limits. This paper presents a framework based on OWASP MCP Top 10 mapped to three architectural tiers, developed using Design Science Research (DSR). Vulnerabilities are classified as server-primary, gateway-primary, or protocol-primary applying a cascading decision tree following four questions, resulting in reproducible tier assignments and confidence levels independent of who applies it. The framework was validated against an enterprise-grade Managed File Transfer (MFT) MCP server built in Go. Validation results showed that high-confidence server-tier controls worked as predicted, and low-confidence protocol-tier controls failed for architectural reasons beyond server implementation. The architectural ceiling encountered during practical validation is the main contribution and shows how secure-by-design development can reduce the MCP attack surface but not completely mitigate it.

cs.CR