Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-54782 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Nestjs Devtools-Integration. Its CVSS base score is 9.4 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 1% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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.
Nest is a Node.js framework, and the vulnerability affects the @nestjs/devtools-integration package in versions 0.2.0 and below. When the package is enabled it starts a local HTTP server that exposes the /inspector/graph/interact endpoint; this endpoint accepts a JSON body containing a code field and executes the supplied JavaScript inside a Node.js vm.runInNewContext sandbox that lacks proper isolation. The implementation also omits cross-origin protections, allowing any origin to reach the endpoint. The issue is tracked as CVE-2025-54782 with a CVSS 4.0 score of 9.4 and is associated with CWE-77, CWE-78, and CWE-352.
An attacker who can lure a developer into visiting a malicious website while the vulnerable NestJS development server is running can submit arbitrary code through the exposed endpoint. Because the sandbox is ineffective and the request requires no authentication or same-origin check, the attacker obtains remote code execution on the developer’s workstation with the privileges of the Node process.
The vulnerability is fixed in @nestjs/devtools-integration 0.2.1. The NestJS security advisory GHSA-85cg-cmq5-qjm7 and accompanying patches disable or properly harden the inspector endpoint; developers are advised to update the package and avoid running the integration in untrusted environments.
Public proof-of-concept code and a demonstration repository have been published, and the EPSS score rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.3911, indicating measurable post-disclosure exploitation interest.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-23413
Vulnerability Data
Nest is a framework for building scalable Node.js server-side applications. In versions 0.2.0 and below, a critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was discovered in the @nestjs/devtools-integration package. When enabled, the package exposes a local development HTTP server with an…
more
API endpoint that uses an unsafe JavaScript sandbox (safe-eval-like implementation). Due to improper sandboxing and missing cross-origin protections, any malicious website visited by a developer can execute arbitrary code on their local machine. The package adds HTTP endpoints to a locally running NestJS development server. One of these endpoints, /inspector/graph/interact, accepts JSON input containing a code field and executes the provided code in a Node.js vm.runInNewContext sandbox. This is fixed in version 0.2.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.3.2V3.5.1V10.2.1V1.2.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Access enforcement requires verifying that state-changing requests originate from the authenticated user rather than a forged cross-site source.
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 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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
By denying access to phishing or malicious sites, the control lowers the likelihood that a user will be tricked into submitting a forged request that performs an unintended action on another site.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.