Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-53372

RCE

RCECommand Injection
Published
08 July 2025
Modified
17 June 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 7.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.011 61th percentile
Risk Priority 57 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-53372 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 39% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

node-code-sandbox-mcp is a Node.js–based Model Context Protocol server that spins up disposable Docker containers to execute arbitrary JavaScript. Prior to 1.3.0, a command injection vulnerability exists in the node-code-sandbox-mcp MCP Server. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of…

more

input parameters within a call to child_process.execSync, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges on the host machine, bypassing the sandbox protection of running code inside docker. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.3.0.

CWE(s)
CWE-77

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, model context protocol

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
attack.mitre.org →
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.008 Network Device CLI Execution
Adversaries may abuse scripting or built-in command line interpreters (CLI) on network devices to execute malicious command and payloads.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-54424Shared CWE-77
CVE-2024-8156Shared CWE-77
CVE-2026-47708Shared CWE-77
CVE-2025-54377Shared CWE-77
CVE-2025-66404Shared CWE-77
CVE-2025-69256Shared CWE-77
CVE-2025-55319Shared CWE-77
CVE-2025-58358Shared CWE-77
CVE-2026-30625Shared CWE-77
CVE-2025-67511Shared CWE-77

Affected Assets

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.3
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V1.2.9

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.

SA-8 Security and Privacy Engineering Principles partial match

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.

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.

A.8.28 Secure coding mostly match
prevents

Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.

A.8.31 Separation of development, test and production environments none match
none

Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.

References