Project: Domain Search MCP Audit Date: December 2024 Audit Type: Comprehensive Security Review
This codebase has undergone multiple layers of security analysis using both AI-powered code review tools and static analysis security scanners. All identified vulnerabilities have been addressed, and the remaining findings have been analyzed and documented as acceptable risks.
| Category | Tools Used | Critical | High | Medium | Low |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI Code Review | 2 platforms | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (false positives) |
| Static Analysis (SAST) | Pattern-based scanner | 0 | 0 | 1 (mitigated) | 0 |
| Dependency Scan (SCA) | Package vulnerability scanner | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Overall Security Posture: PRODUCTION READY
Location: src/registrars/namecheap.ts
Issue: External service call to determine client IP exposed user's IP address to third-party service.
CWE: CWE-200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information)
Resolution:
- Removed external IP lookup dependency
- IP now configured via
NAMECHEAP_CLIENT_IPenvironment variable - Added IP format validation (IPv4/IPv6)
// Before (vulnerable)
const ip = await axios.get('https://external-ip-service.com');
// After (secure)
const ip = config.namecheap.clientIp; // User-configured, no external callLocation: src/utils/cache.ts
Issue: Cache had no size limit, allowing potential memory exhaustion through repeated unique queries.
CWE: CWE-400 (Uncontrolled Resource Consumption)
Resolution:
- Implemented LRU (Least Recently Used) eviction policy
- Added configurable maximum cache size (default: 10,000 entries)
- Added
lastAccessedAttracking for intelligent eviction
// Cache now implements size limits with LRU eviction
const DEFAULT_MAX_CACHE_SIZE = 10000; // ~10MB max memoryLocation: src/registrars/porkbun.ts, src/registrars/namecheap.ts, src/fallbacks/rdap.ts
Issue: External API responses were used without schema validation, risking type confusion or injection.
CWE: CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation)
Resolution:
- Added Zod schema validation for all external API responses
- Implemented strict type inference from schemas
- Added safe parsing with
.safeParse()for graceful error handling
// All external responses now validated
const parseResult = ResponseSchema.safeParse(response.data);
if (!parseResult.success) {
throw new RegistrarApiError('Invalid API response format');
}Location: src/fallbacks/rdap.ts
Issue: RDAP vCard arrays accessed without bounds checking, risking crashes on malformed data.
CWE: CWE-129 (Improper Validation of Array Index)
Resolution:
- Added comprehensive bounds checking before array access
- Wrapped extraction in try-catch for defensive error handling
- Validated array structure at each nesting level
// Safe extraction with bounds checking
if (!Array.isArray(vcardArray) || vcardArray.length < 2) {
return undefined;
}Location: src/registrars/namecheap.ts:77,94
Scanner Finding: "Potential ReDoS via dynamic RegExp"
Severity Reported: Medium
Analysis:
| Factor | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Input source | Hardcoded whitelist (ALLOWED_XML_TAGS) |
| User control | None - parameters are literal strings in code |
| Regex complexity | Simple pattern, no nested quantifiers |
| Backtracking risk | None - [^<]* cannot cause catastrophic backtracking |
Conclusion: FALSE POSITIVE
The scanner cannot determine that the tag parameter is constrained by a compile-time whitelist. The regex pattern itself is mathematically immune to ReDoS attacks.
Mitigation: Whitelist validation occurs before RegExp construction:
const ALLOWED_XML_TAGS = new Set(['Error', 'Errors', 'DomainCheckResult']);
if (!ALLOWED_XML_TAGS.has(tag)) {
return undefined; // Reject non-whitelisted tags
}Location: examples/*.ts
Scanner Finding: "Unsafe format string concatenation"
Severity Reported: Info
Analysis:
- Located in example/demo files only
- Not part of production server code
- No user input reaches these code paths
- Examples run locally by developers only
Conclusion: ACCEPTABLE - Example code, not production
Scan Date: December 2024
Vulnerabilities Found: 0
Dependencies Analyzed:
├── @modelcontextprotocol/sdk (runtime)
├── axios (runtime)
├── zod (runtime)
├── dotenv (runtime)
├── winston (runtime)
└── [dev dependencies excluded from production]
| Package | Current | Latest | Risk Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| zod | 3.x | 4.x | Major version, breaking changes - defer upgrade |
| dotenv | 16.x | 17.x | No security implications |
| @types/* | Various | Various | Dev-only, no runtime impact |
Recommendation: No immediate action required. Schedule major version upgrades during planned maintenance windows.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ MCP Protocol Layer │
│ (Zod schema validation at entry) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Input Validation │
│ (Domain/TLD validators with sanitization) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Rate Limiting │
│ (Token bucket per registrar adapter) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Response Validation │
│ (Zod schemas for all external APIs) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Resource Limits │
│ (LRU cache eviction, request timeouts) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
| Control | Implementation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Input validation | Zod schemas + custom validators | ✅ |
| Output encoding | N/A (JSON only) | ✅ |
| Authentication | API keys via environment variables | ✅ |
| Rate limiting | Per-adapter token bucket | ✅ |
| Error handling | Custom error types, no stack traces to clients | ✅ |
| Logging | Winston with configurable levels | ✅ |
| Secrets management | Environment variables, no hardcoding | ✅ |
| Dependency security | 0 known vulnerabilities | ✅ |
- Before adding new external APIs: Add Zod schema validation for responses
- Before adding user-facing inputs: Validate and sanitize at entry point
- When modifying cache logic: Maintain size limits and eviction policies
- When updating dependencies: Run vulnerability scan before merging
- For sensitive configurations: Use environment variables, never commit secrets
This security review employed a multi-layer approach:
- AI-Powered Code Review - Semantic analysis for logic flaws, security anti-patterns, and architectural issues
- Static Application Security Testing (SAST) - Pattern-based scanning for OWASP Top 10, CWE vulnerabilities
- Software Composition Analysis (SCA) - Dependency vulnerability database matching
- Manual Code Review - Verification of automated findings, false positive elimination
Each finding was triaged using:
- Exploitability assessment - Can this actually be exploited?
- Data flow analysis - Where does the data come from?
- Framework context - What protections exist at other layers?
This codebase has been reviewed and approved for production deployment.
Security Review: PASSED
Last Updated: December 2024
Next Review: Recommended before major version releases