Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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-2026-30615 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Ox (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 20th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; 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-2026-30615 is a prompt injection vulnerability affecting Windsurf version 1.9544.26. The flaw occurs when Windsurf processes attacker-controlled HTML content, enabling malicious instructions to unauthorizedly modify the local MCP configuration and automatically register a malicious MCP STDIO server. This results in the execution of arbitrary commands on the victim system without further user interaction. The vulnerability is rated with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.0 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H) and is associated with CWE-77 (Command Injection).
Remote attackers can exploit this vulnerability by supplying malicious HTML content for processing by Windsurf. No privileges are required (PR:N), and exploitation requires low complexity with no user interaction (UI:N). Successful attacks allow execution of arbitrary commands on behalf of the user, persistence of malicious MCP configuration changes, and access to sensitive information exposed through the application.
The primary advisory reference is available at https://www.ox.security/blog/mcp-supply-chain-advisory-rce-vulnerabilities-across-the-ai-ecosystem/, which discusses MCP supply-chain RCE vulnerabilities across the AI ecosystem. Specific mitigation details, such as patches, are not detailed in the provided CVE information.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22938
Vulnerability Data
A prompt injection vulnerability in Windsurf 1.9544.26 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on a victim system. When Windsurf processes attacker-controlled HTML content, malicious instructions can cause unauthorized modification of the local MCP configuration and automatic registration of a…
more
malicious MCP STDIO server, resulting in execution of arbitrary commands without further user interaction. Successful exploitation may allow attackers to execute commands on behalf of the user, persist malicious MCP configuration changes, and access sensitive information exposed through the application.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- LLM/Generative AI Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- AI-specific weaknesses CR
- CWE-1427 — Root cause is untrusted input reaching LLM prompt, with model output driving config/exec sink.
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: mcp, prompt injection
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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 coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.