Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-2025-54795 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Anthropic Claude Code. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 41% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; in the LLM/Generative AI 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.
CVE-2025-54795 is a high-severity vulnerability (CVSS 9.8, CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) affecting Claude Code, an agentic coding tool from Anthropic. Published on 2025-08-05, it arises from an error in command parsing in versions below 1.0.20, enabling attackers to bypass the tool's confirmation prompt and trigger execution of untrusted commands. The issue is classified under CWE-78 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command).
Attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low complexity, requiring no privileges or user interaction. Reliable exploitation depends on the ability to insert untrusted content into a Claude Code context window, potentially leading to arbitrary command execution with high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The vulnerability is addressed in Claude Code version 1.0.20. Additional details on mitigation and patches are available in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/security/advisories/GHSA-x56v-x2h6-7j34.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-23573
Vulnerability Data
Claude Code is an agentic coding tool. In versions below 1.0.20, an error in command parsing makes it possible to bypass the Claude Code confirmation prompt to trigger execution of an untrusted command. Reliably exploiting this requires the ability to…
more
add untrusted content into a Claude Code context window. This is fixed in version 1.0.20.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Enterprise AI Assistants
- Risk Domain
- LLM/Generative AI Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- AI-specific weaknesses CR
- CWE-1427 — Untrusted context input bypasses confirmation; model output reaches command sink.
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: claude
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.