Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-61591 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Anysphere Cursor. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 37% 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 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.
CVE-2025-61591 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) affecting Cursor, an AI-powered code editor for programming, in versions 1.7 and below. The flaw occurs when the MCP component uses OAuth authentication with an untrusted MCP server, allowing an attacker to impersonate a malicious server and inject crafted commands during the authentication interaction process. This leads to potential remote code execution on the affected host.
An attacker with network access can exploit this vulnerability without prior privileges by tricking a user into authenticating via OAuth to a malicious MCP server (user interaction required, per CVSS UI:R). Successful exploitation enables arbitrary command injection by the agent, resulting in remote code execution with full user privileges on the host system, compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CVSS 8.8: AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
The GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/cursor/cursor/security/advisories/GHSA-wj33-264c-j9cq notes no fixed release version is available yet, but a patch (2025.09.17-25b418f) has been issued for remediation. Security practitioners should apply this patch promptly and avoid using untrusted MCP servers with OAuth in Cursor installations.
Cursor's integration of AI for programming introduces relevance to AI/ML workflows, as exploitation could target developer environments handling AI model code or data. No public reports of real-world exploitation are available as of the CVE publication on 2025-10-03.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-33205
Vulnerability Data
Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. In versions 1.7 and below, when MCP uses OAuth authentication with an untrusted MCP server, an attacker can impersonate a malicious MCP server and return crafted, maliciously injected commands during…
more
the interaction process, leading to command injection and potential remote code execution. If chained with an untrusted MCP service via OAuth, this command injection vulnerability could allow arbitrary code execution on the host by the agent. This can then be used to directly compromise the system by executing malicious commands with full user privileges. This issue does not currently have a fixed release version, but there is a patch, 2025.09.17-25b418f.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Enterprise AI Assistants
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: ai, mcp
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.