Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-64109 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 40th 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 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-2025-64109 is a remote code execution vulnerability (CWE-78) in the Cursor CLI Beta, a code editor designed for programming with AI. The flaw resides in the MCP (Model Context Protocol) server mechanism, where a malicious MCP configuration can be placed in a .cursor/mcp.json file within a GitHub repository. It affects versions prior to 2025.09.17-25b418f and has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
An attacker who controls a GitHub repository can exploit this by uploading a malicious .cursor/mcp.json file. A victim using a vulnerable version of Cursor CLI Beta who clones the repository and opens the project will have the command to run the malicious MCP server executed immediately without any warning, enabling arbitrary code execution on the victim's machine.
The issue is addressed in Cursor version 2025.09.17-25b418f. Additional details are available in the vendor's security advisory at https://github.com/cursor/cursor/security/advisories/GHSA-4hwr-97q3-37w2.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-37905
Vulnerability Data
Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. In versions and below, a vulnerability in the Cursor CLI Beta allowed an attacker to achieve remote code execution through the MCP (Model Context Protocol) server mechanism by uploading a…
more
malicious MCP configuration in .cursor/mcp.json file in a GitHub repository. Once a victim clones the project and opens it using Cursor CLI, the command to run the malicious MCP server is immediately executed without any warning, leading to potential code execution as soon as the command runs. This issue is fixed in version 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, model context protocol
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.