Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Phlogistique 96 days ago
The point is authorization. With full web access, your agent can reach anything and leak anything.

You could restrict where it can go with domain allowlists but that has insufficient granularity. The same URL can serve a legitimate request or exfiltrate data depending on what's in the headers or payload: see https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2025/claude-abusing-net...

So you need to restrict not only where the agent can reach, but what operations it can perform, with the host controlling credentials and parameters. That brings us to an MCP-like solution.
1 comments
rvz 96 days ago
But this is no different to using an API key with access controls and curl and you get the same thing.

MCP is just as worse version of the above allowing lots of data exfiltration and manipulation by the LLM.

link
acchow 96 days ago
But MCP uses Oauth. That is not a "worse version" of API keys. It is better.

The classic "API key" flow requires you to go to the resource site, generate a key, copy it, then paste it where you want it to go.

Oauth automates this. It's like "give me an API key" on demand.

link
regularfry 96 days ago
An MCP server lets you avoid giving the agent your API key so it can't leak it. At least in theory.

You could do the same with a CLI tool but it's more of a hassle to set up.

link