Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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-2025-66401 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Kapilduraphe Mcp Watch. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 18% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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-2025-66401 is a critical command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in MCP Watch, a comprehensive security scanner for Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, affecting versions 0.1.2 and earlier. The issue exists in the MCPScanner class's cloneRepo method, where the user-supplied githubUrl argument is passed directly to a system shell via execSync without any sanitization. This flaw enables attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the host machine by appending shell metacharacters to the URL. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity due to its network accessibility and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Remote attackers require no privileges or user interaction to exploit this vulnerability, making it accessible over the network with low attack complexity. By supplying a crafted githubUrl to the cloneRepo method, an attacker can inject and execute arbitrary shell commands on the underlying host system, potentially leading to full compromise including data theft, persistence, or further lateral movement.
Mitigation details are provided in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/kapilduraphe/mcp-watch/security/advisories/GHSA-27m7-ffhq-jqrm and the patching commit at https://github.com/kapilduraphe/mcp-watch/commit/e7da78c5b4b960f8b66c254059ad9ebc544a91a6. Security practitioners should ensure MCP Watch instances are updated beyond version 0.1.2 to address the unsanitized execSync usage.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-200116
Vulnerability Data
MCP Watch is a comprehensive security scanner for Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. In 0.1.2 and earlier, the MCPScanner class contains a critical Command Injection vulnerability in the cloneRepo method. The application passes the user-supplied githubUrl argument directly to a…
more
system shell via execSync without sanitization. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the host machine by appending shell metacharacters to the 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, 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.