Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-53542 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Zerodaysec (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 48th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21025
Vulnerability Data
Headlamp is an extensible Kubernetes web UI. A command injection vulnerability was discovered in the codeSign.js script used in the macOS packaging workflow of the Kubernetes Headlamp project. This issue arises due to the improper use of Node.js's execSync() function…
more
with unsanitized input derived from environment variables, which can be influenced by an attacker. The variables ${teamID}, ${entitlementsPath}, and ${config.app} are dynamically derived from the environment or application config and passed directly to the shell command without proper escaping or argument separation. This exposes the system to command injection if any of the values contain malicious input. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.31.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
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 require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.
Secure coding standards explicitly require proper neutralization of command arguments, directly eliminating CWE-88.