MCP-DPT: A Defense-Placement Taxonomy and Coverage Analysis for Model Context Protocol Security
Mehrdad Rostamzadeh , Sidhant Narula , Nahom Birhan , Mohammad Ghasemigol , Daniel Takabi
Published on arXiv
2604.07551
Insecure Plugin Design
OWASP LLM Top 10 — LLM07
Excessive Agency
OWASP LLM Top 10 — LLM08
Key Finding
Reveals predominantly tool-centric protection with persistent gaps at host orchestration, transport, and supply-chain layers, suggesting MCP security weaknesses stem from architectural misalignment
MCP-DPT
Novel technique introduced
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables large language models (LLMs) to dynamically discover and invoke third-party tools, significantly expanding agent capabilities while introducing a distinct security landscape. Unlike prompt-only interactions, MCP exposes pre-execution artifacts, shared context, multi-turn workflows, and third-party supply chains to adversarial influence across independently operated components. While recent work has identified MCP-specific attacks and evaluated defenses, existing studies are largely attack-centric or benchmark-driven, providing limited guidance on where mitigation responsibility should reside within the MCP architecture. This is problematic given MCP's multi-party design and distributed trust boundaries. We present a defense-placement-oriented security analysis of MCP, introducing a layer-aligned taxonomy that organizes attacks by the architectural component responsible for enforcement. Threats are mapped across six MCP layers, and primary and secondary defense points are identified to support principled defense-in-depth reasoning under adversaries controlling tools, servers, or ecosystem components. A structured mapping of existing academic and industry defenses onto this framework reveals uneven and predominantly tool-centric protection, with persistent gaps at the host orchestration, transport, and supply-chain layers. These findings suggest that many MCP security weaknesses stem from architectural misalignment rather than isolated implementation flaws.
Key Contributions
- Layer-aligned defense-placement taxonomy organizing MCP attacks by architectural component responsible for enforcement
- Structured mapping of existing academic and industry defenses revealing uneven coverage and persistent gaps at orchestration, transport, and supply-chain layers
- Defense-in-depth framework identifying primary and secondary defense points across six MCP layers under adversaries controlling tools, servers, or ecosystem components