CVE-2025-54063
Cherry-Ai Cherry Studio 1.4.8 – 1.5.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-54063 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Cherry-Ai Cherry Studio. Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 48% 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 LLM Application Platforms; in the Supply Chain and Deployment 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.
Cherry Studio, a desktop client supporting multiple LLM providers, contains a remote code execution vulnerability in versions 1.4.8 through 1.5.0. The flaw stems from improper handling of custom URLs (CWE-94), which allows arbitrary code execution when a specially crafted link is processed by the application.
An attacker can exploit the issue by hosting a malicious website or embedding a crafted URL on any page. When a victim clicks the link in a browser, the app's custom URL handler is invoked, resulting in remote code execution on the victim's machine with high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CVSS 8.0).
The vulnerability has been addressed in version 1.5.1. The project security advisory, associated pull request, and commit on GitHub document the fix and recommend that users upgrade promptly.
EPSS for the CVE remains flat at a low value of 0.0147 with no observed rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-24161
Vulnerability Data
Cherry Studio is a desktop client that supports for multiple LLM providers. From versions 1.4.8 to 1.5.0, there is a one-click remote code execution vulnerability through the custom URL handling. An attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious website…
more
or embedding a specially crafted URL on any website. If a victim clicks the exploit link in their browser, the app’s custom URL handler is triggered, leading to remote code execution on the victim’s machine. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.1.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- LLM Application Platforms
- Risk Domain
- Supply Chain and Deployment
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: llm
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.