Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-53818 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.9 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 29% 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
GitHub Kanban MCP Server version 0.3.0, an MCP server for managing GitHub issues in Kanban format to support LLM task workflows, contains a command-injection vulnerability (CWE-78). The add_comment tool implementation concatenates untrusted input directly into a shell command executed via the Node.js child_process exec API to invoke the gh CLI, allowing arbitrary command execution on the host.
An unauthenticated remote attacker who can reach the exposed MCP tool can supply crafted input to achieve full control over the server process, resulting in high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability as reflected in the CVSS 8.9 rating.
The published GitHub Security Advisory GHSA-6jx8-rcjx-vmwf and linked source files document the vulnerable code paths but state that no patches are available at the time of disclosure.
EPSS remains flat at 0.0185 with no material increase since publication, and no evidence of in-the-wild exploitation is reported.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21393
Vulnerability Data
GitHub Kanban MCP Server is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for managing GitHub issues in Kanban board format and streamlining LLM task management. Version 0.3.0 of the MCP Server is written in a way that is vulnerable to command…
more
injection vulnerability attacks as part of some of its MCP Server tool definition and implementation. The MCP Server exposes the tool `add_comment` which relies on Node.js child process API `exec` to execute the GitHub (`gh`) command, is an unsafe and vulnerable API if concatenated with untrusted user input. As of time of publication, no known patches are available.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: llm, mcp, model context protocol
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.