CVE-2025-53928
Maxkb ≤ 1.10.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-53928 is a medium-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Maxkb Maxkb. Its CVSS base score is 4.6 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 36th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; 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.
MaxKB, an open-source AI assistant for enterprise use, is affected by a remote command execution vulnerability in its MCP call. The flaw, identified as CVE-2025-53928 and assigned CWE-94, exists in all versions prior to 1.10.9-lts and 2.0.0 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 4.6 reflecting network attack vector, high complexity, and limited impacts across confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An authenticated attacker who can supply crafted input to the MCP call may trigger arbitrary command execution, though successful exploitation requires user interaction and faces high attack complexity that limits the practical impact to partial control over the affected instance.
The project has published fixes in versions 1.10.9-lts and 2.0.0, with details available in the corresponding GitHub security advisory and release notes that recommend immediate upgrade for affected deployments. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0208 with no material increase since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21771
Vulnerability Data
MaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. Prior to versions 1.10.9-lts and 2.0.0, a Remote Command Execution vulnerability exists in the MCP call. Versions 1.10.9-lts and 2.0.0 fix the issue.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Enterprise AI Assistants
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- AI-specific weaknesses CR
- CWE-1426 — RCE via MCP/tool call indicates model output reaching sink without validation
Mapped by Cyber Resilience · not in NVD. Poisoning and extraction cases are routed to MITRE ATLAS instead of a synthetic CWE.- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: ai, mcp
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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 target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.