Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-30625 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability. 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 41% 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-2026-30625 is a remote code execution vulnerability affecting Upsonic version 0.71.6, specifically in its MCP server and task creation functionality. The flaw arises because the application permits users to define MCP tasks using arbitrary command and argument values, despite an existing allowlist. Certain whitelisted commands, such as npm and npx, can accept argument flags that enable the execution of arbitrary operating system commands, bypassing the intended restrictions.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can exploit this vulnerability by submitting maliciously crafted MCP tasks, leading to remote code execution with the privileges of the Upsonic process. The CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) reflects its critical severity, with network accessibility, low complexity, and no privileges required, resulting in high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. This is classified under CWE-77 (Command Injection).
The Upsonic GitHub commit at https://github.com/Upsonic/Upsonic/commit/855053fce0662227d9246268ff4a0844b481a305 documents the patch, while version 0.72.0 introduced a warning about Stdio servers' ability to execute commands directly on the host machine. Additional details on mitigation appear in the OX Security advisory at https://www.ox.security/blog/mcp-supply-chain-advisory-rce-vulnerabilities-across-the-ai-ecosystem/.
This vulnerability is part of broader RCE issues in the AI ecosystem supply chain, as highlighted in the referenced advisory. No public information on real-world exploitation is available in the provided details.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22945
Vulnerability Data
Upsonic 0.71.6 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in its MCP server/task creation functionality. The application allows users to define MCP tasks with arbitrary command and args values. Although an allowlist exists, certain allowed commands (npm, npx) accept argument flags…
more
that enable execution of arbitrary OS commands. Maliciously crafted MCP tasks may lead to remote code execution with the privileges of the Upsonic process. In version 0.72.0 Upsonic added a warning about using Stdio servers being able to execute commands directly on the machine.
- 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
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
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.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.