Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-6514 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Jfrog (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.6 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 0.5% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; 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-2025-6514 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in mcp-remote that arises when the client processes a crafted authorization_endpoint response URL returned by an untrusted MCP server. The flaw received a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.6, reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, no required privileges, and high impact across confidentiality, integrity, and availability with changed scope.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the issue by hosting a malicious MCP server that supplies malicious input in the authorization_endpoint field; when a user connects to that server, the injected commands execute on the client system, enabling full remote code execution.
A patch addressing the command-injection vector was merged in commit 607b226a356cb61a239ffaba2fb3db1c9dea4bac of the mcp-remote repository, and JFrog has published detailed analysis and mitigation guidance.
The EPSS score rose to a peak of 0.1606 before settling at the current value of 0.1217, indicating measurable post-disclosure exploitation interest.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-20823
Vulnerability Data
mcp-remote is exposed to OS command injection when connecting to untrusted MCP servers due to crafted input from the authorization_endpoint response URL
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: 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.