CVE-2025-11490
Command Injection in Wonderwhy-Er Desktopcommandermcp ≤ 0.2.13
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-11490 is a low-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Wonderwhy-Er Desktopcommandermcp. Its CVSS base score is 2.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 12% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
A vulnerability has been identified in wonderwhy-er DesktopCommanderMCP versions up to 0.2.13, residing in the extractBaseCommand function of src/command-manager.ts within the Absolute Path Handler component. The flaw permits OS command injection and is tracked under CWE-77 and CWE-78, carrying a CVSS 4.0 score of 2.1.
Remote attackers with low privileges can exploit the issue without user interaction to inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands, resulting in limited effects on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Publicly disclosed proof-of-concept material exists and the attack can be launched over the network.
Advisories hosted in the referenced GitHub issues and Vuldb entries record the vendor response that typical AI-driven usage involves simple command names without absolute paths, that no real-world workflow abuse has been reported, and that the issue remains open for future reports.
The EPSS probability rose from a low starting value to a peak of 0.0152 on 2025-12-11 before receding to the current 0.0028, indicating post-disclosure interest in exploitation. The affected software is designed to let AI models autonomously select and run desktop commands.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-33288
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability has been found in wonderwhy-er DesktopCommanderMCP up to 0.2.13. The affected element is the function extractBaseCommand of the file src/command-manager.ts of the component Absolute Path Handler. Such manipulation leads to os command injection. The attack may be performed…
more
from remote. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor explains: "The usual use case is that AI is asked to do something, picks commands itself, and typically uses simple command names without absolute paths. It's curious why a user would ask the model to bypass restrictions this way. (...) This could potentially be a problem, but we are yet to hear reports of this being an issue in actual workflows. We'll leave this issue open for situations where people may report this as a problem for the long term."
- 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: ai
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.