Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-6942 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Radare Radare2 Mcp Server. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 21% 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-2026-6942 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in radare2-mcp version 1.6.0 and earlier. The flaw occurs in the r2_cmd_str() function, where user-controlled input passed through JSON-RPC interface parameters can bypass the command filter using shell metacharacters, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands.
Remote attackers can exploit this vulnerability over the network without authentication, requiring low complexity and no user interaction (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H, score 9.8). Exploitation achieves remote code execution on the host running radare2-mcp by injecting shell metacharacters into the affected parameters.
A patch addressing the vulnerability is available in a commit to the radare2-mcp repository at https://github.com/radareorg/radare2-mcp/commit/482cde6500009112a8bc0b3fa8d2ef6180581ec0. Further details on the issue and remediation are provided in the GitHub issue tracker at https://github.com/radareorg/radare2-mcp/issues/45 and the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/radare2-mcp-os-command-injection-via-shell-metacharacter-bypass.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25314
Vulnerability Data
radare2-mcp version 1.6.0 and earlier contains an os command injection vulnerability that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by bypassing the command filter through shell metacharacters in user-controlled input passed to r2_cmd_str(). Attackers can inject shell metacharacters through the…
more
jsonrpc interface parameters to achieve remote code execution on the host running radare2-mcp without requiring authentication.
- 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.