Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-61593 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Anysphere Cursor. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 31th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-2025-61593 affects Cursor, an AI-powered code editor, specifically in versions 1.7 and below. The vulnerability resides in the Cursor CLI Agent's protection mechanism for sensitive files, such as those located at */.cursor/cli.json. Attackers can exploit this through prompt injection to modify the content of these files, enabling remote code execution (RCE). This issue is particularly effective on case-insensitive filesystems and is associated with CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code) and CWE-178 (Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Exploitation requires network access, low privileges (PR:L), user interaction (UI:R), and high attack complexity (AC:H). A malicious actor with these conditions can deliver a prompt injection payload to the Cursor CLI Agent, tricking it into altering sensitive configuration files. Successful modification grants full RCE on the affected system, compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability with high impact.
The GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-x2vq-h6v6-jhc6) details the fix in commit 25b418f, though it remains unreleased as of October 3, 2025. Security practitioners should monitor for an official patch release and consider workarounds such as restricting CLI Agent usage, enforcing case-sensitive filesystems where possible, or disabling AI features until mitigation is available.
Notable context includes Cursor's AI integration for programming, making this prompt injection vulnerability relevant to AI/ML-assisted development tools, with no reported real-world exploitation as of disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-33203
Vulnerability Data
Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. In versions 1.7 and below, a vulnerability in the way Cursor CLI Agent protects its sensitive files (i.e. */.cursor/cli.json) allows attackers to modify the content of the files through prompt…
more
injection, thus achieving remote code execution. A prompt injection can lead to full RCE through modifying sensitive files on case-insensitive filesystems. This issue is fixed in a commit, 25b418f, but has yet to be released as of October 3, 2025.
- 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 — Prompt injection reaches model and enables file modification/RCE
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, prompt injection
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.
Applying access control decisions to each request depends on accurate property determination that accounts for case differences.
Correct enforcement of authorizations for resource access structurally requires consistent case-sensitive handling of identifiers to avoid incorrect decisions.
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.
Secure SDLC practices should include case-sensitivity requirements in design and coding standards.
Application security requirements must specify case handling for identifiers and paths.
Architecture principles should enforce canonical, case-aware resource naming.
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.
Access-control rules that ignore case can allow unintended resource access.
Authentication logic must treat identifiers consistently to avoid bypass via case differences.