CVE-2025-10193
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:N/R:X/V:D/RE:L/U:AmberSummary
CVE-2025-10193 is a high-severity Origin Validation Error (CWE-346) vulnerability in Neo4J (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Drive-by Compromise (T1189); ranked at the 11th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; in the Protocol-Specific Risks risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28908
Vulnerability Data
DNS rebinding vulnerability in Neo4j Cypher MCP server allows malicious websites to bypass Same-Origin Policy protections and execute unauthorised tool invocations against locally running Neo4j MCP instances. The attack relies on the user being enticed to visit a malicious website…
more
and spend sufficient time there for DNS rebinding to succeed.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: mcp
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
DNS rebinding vulnerability enables drive-by compromise (T1189) by allowing malicious websites to bypass Same-Origin Policy and execute unauthorized tool invocations on local Neo4j MCP server instances when users visit the site.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces origin-based access decisions so that tool invocations from a rebound DNS origin are rejected before execution.
Enforces information-flow policy between web origins and the local MCP service, blocking the unauthorized cross-origin channel created by DNS rebinding.
Boundary-protection mechanisms can restrict or monitor traffic to the localhost MCP endpoint, limiting the attack surface reachable from a malicious website.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Authentication directly verifies the source of users/services/hardware, mitigating origin validation failures.
Verifying identity assertions enforces origin validation for conveyed claims.
Documenting authorized flows supports origin validation by defining expected sources.
Protecting networks from unauthorized access requires origin checks on communication sources.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Network security controls enforce origin validation at network boundaries.
Security of network services includes validating the authenticity of service endpoints.
Network segregation reduces exposure but does not directly validate origins.
Application security requirements explicitly call for origin validation of inputs and communications.
Secure architecture principles encourage origin checks but do not mandate them.
Secure coding practices include implementing proper origin validation to prevent spoofing.