Total
3432 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-54416 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.1 CRITICAL | ||
| tj-actions/branch-names is a Github actions repository that contains workflows to retrieve branch or tag names with support for all events. In versions 8.2.1 and below, a critical vulnerability has been identified in the tj-actions/branch-names' GitHub Action workflow which allows arbitrary command execution in downstream workflows. This issue arises due to inconsistent input sanitization and unescaped output, enabling malicious actors to exploit specially crafted branch names or tags. While internal sanitization mechanisms have been implemented, the action outputs remain vulnerable, exposing consuming workflows to significant security risks. This is fixed in version 9.0.0 | |||||
| CVE-2025-54393 | 1 Netwrix | 1 Directory Manager | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.4 MEDIUM |
| Netwrix Directory Manager (formerly Imanami GroupID) 11.0.0.0 before 11.1.25162.02 allows Static Code Injection. Authenticated users can obtain administrative access. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54377 | 1 Roocode | 1 Roo Code | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in users' editors. In versions 3.23.18 and below, RooCode does not validate line breaks (\n) in its command input, allowing potential bypass of the allow-list mechanism. The project appears to lack parsing or validation logic to prevent multi-line command injection. When commands are evaluated for execution, only the first line or token may be considered, enabling attackers to smuggle additional commands in subsequent lines. This is fixed in version 3.23.19. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54131 | 1 Anysphere | 1 Cursor | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.4 MEDIUM |
| Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. In versions below 1.3, an attacker can bypass the allow list in auto-run mode with a backtick (`) or $(cmd). If a user has swapped Cursor from its default settings (requiring approval for every terminal call) to an allowlist, an attacker can execute arbitrary command execution outside of the allowlist without user approval. An attacker can trigger this vulnerability if chained with indirect prompt injection. This is fixed in version 1.3. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54100 | 1 Microsoft | 14 Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 21h2 and 11 more | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in Windows PowerShell allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54073 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH | ||
| mcp-package-docs is an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that provides LLMs with efficient access to package documentation across multiple programming languages and language server protocol (LSP) capabilities. A command injection vulnerability exists in the `mcp-package-docs` MCP Server prior to the fix in commit cb4ad49615275379fd6f2f1cf1ec4731eec56eb9. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to `child_process.exec`, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges. The server constructs and executes shell commands using unvalidated user input directly within command-line strings. This introduces the possibility of shell metacharacter injection (`|`, `>`, `&&`, etc.). Commit cb4ad49615275379fd6f2f1cf1ec4731eec56eb9 in version 0.1.27 contains a fix for the issue, but upgrading to 0.1.28 is recommended. | |||||
| CVE-2025-53832 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH | ||
| Lara Translate MCP Server is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server for Lara Translate API. Versions 0.0.11 and below contain a command injection vulnerability which exists in the @translated/lara-mcp MCP Server. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to child_process.exec, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges. The server constructs and executes shell commands using unvalidated user input directly within command-line strings. This introduces the possibility of shell metacharacter injection (|, >, &&, etc.). This vulnerability is fixed in version 0.0.12. | |||||
| CVE-2025-53787 | 1 Microsoft | 1 365 Copilot Chat | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.2 HIGH |
| Microsoft 365 Copilot BizChat Information Disclosure Vulnerability | |||||
| CVE-2025-53774 | 1 Microsoft | 1 365 Copilot Chat | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| Microsoft 365 Copilot BizChat Information Disclosure Vulnerability | |||||
| CVE-2025-53773 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Visual Studio 2022 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally. | |||||
| CVE-2025-53372 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH | ||
| node-code-sandbox-mcp is a Node.js–based Model Context Protocol server that spins up disposable Docker containers to execute arbitrary JavaScript. Prior to 1.3.0, a command injection vulnerability exists in the node-code-sandbox-mcp MCP Server. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to child_process.execSync, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges on the host machine, bypassing the sandbox protection of running code inside docker. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.3.0. | |||||
| CVE-2025-53355 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH | ||
| MCP Server Kubernetes is an MCP Server that can connect to a Kubernetes cluster and manage it. A command injection vulnerability exists in the mcp-server-kubernetes MCP Server. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to child_process.execSync, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.5.0. | |||||
| CVE-2025-53107 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH | ||
| @cyanheads/git-mcp-server is an MCP server designed to interact with Git repositories. Prior to version 2.1.5, there is a command injection vulnerability caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to child_process.exec, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges. The server constructs and executes shell commands using unvalidated user input directly within command-line strings. This introduces the possibility of shell metacharacter injection (|, >, &&, etc.). An MCP Client can be instructed to execute additional actions for example via indirect prompt injection when asked to read git logs. This issue has been patched in version 2.1.5. | |||||
| CVE-2025-53104 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.1 CRITICAL | ||
| gluestack-ui is a library of copy-pasteable components & patterns crafted with Tailwind CSS (NativeWind). Prior to commit e6b4271, a command injection vulnerability was discovered in the discussion-to-slack.yml GitHub Actions workflow. Untrusted discussion fields (title, body, etc.) were directly interpolated into shell commands in a run: block. An attacker could craft a malicious GitHub Discussion title or body (e.g., $(curl ...)) to execute arbitrary shell commands on the Actions runner. This issue has been fixed in commit e6b4271 where the discussion-to-slack.yml workflow was removed. Users should remove the discussion-to-slack.yml workflow if using a fork or derivative of this repository. | |||||
| CVE-2025-53098 | 1 Roocode | 1 Roo Code | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH |
| Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent. The project-specific MCP configuration for the Roo Code agent is stored in the `.roo/mcp.json` file within the VS Code workspace. Because the MCP configuration format allows for execution of arbitrary commands, prior to version 3.20.3, it would have been possible for an attacker with access to craft a prompt to ask the agent to write a malicious command to the MCP configuration file. If the user had opted-in to auto-approving file writes within the project, this would have led to arbitrary command execution. This issue is of moderate severity, since it requires the attacker to already be able to submit prompts to the agent (for instance through a prompt injection attack), for the user to have MCP enabled (on by default), and for the user to have enabled auto-approved file writes (off by default). Version 3.20.3 fixes the issue by adding an additional layer of opt-in configuration for auto-approving writing to Roo's configuration files, including all files within the `.roo/` folder. | |||||
| CVE-2025-52995 | 1 Filebrowser | 1 Filebrowser | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.0 HIGH |
| File Browser provides a file managing interface within a specified directory and it can be used to upload, delete, preview, rename and edit files. Prior to version 2.33.10, the implementation of the allowlist is erroneous, allowing a user to execute more shell commands than they are authorized for. The concrete impact of this vulnerability depends on the commands configured, and the binaries installed on the server or in the container image. Due to the missing separation of scopes on the OS-level, this could give an attacker access to all files managed the application, including the File Browser database. This issue has been patched in version 2.33.10. | |||||
| CVE-2025-52904 | 1 Filebrowser | 1 Filebrowser | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.0 HIGH |
| File Browser provides a file managing interface within a specified directory and it can be used to upload, delete, preview, rename and edit files. In versions of the web application on the 2.x branch, all users have a scope assigned, and they only have access to the files within that scope. The Command Execution feature of Filebrowser allows the execution of shell commands which are not restricted to the scope, potentially giving an attacker read and write access to all files managed by the server. Until this issue is fixed, the maintainers recommend to completely disable `Execute commands` for all accounts. Since the command execution is an inherently dangerous feature that is not used by all deployments, it should be possible to completely disable it in the application's configuration. This feature has been disabled by default for all installations from v2.33.8 onwards, including for existent installations. To exploit this vulnerability, the instance administrator must turn on a feature and ignore all the warnings about known vulnerabilities. | |||||
| CVE-2025-52903 | 1 Filebrowser | 1 Filebrowser | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.0 HIGH |
| File Browser provides a file managing interface within a specified directory and it can be used to upload, delete, preview, rename and edit files. In versions on the 2.x branch prior to 2.33.10, the Command Execution feature of File Browser only allows the execution of shell command which have been predefined on a user-specific allowlist. Many tools allow the execution of arbitrary different commands, rendering this limitation void. The concrete impact depends on the commands being granted to the attacker, but the large number of standard commands allowing the execution of subcommands makes it likely that every user having the `Execute commands` permissions can exploit this vulnerability. Everyone who can exploit it will have full code execution rights with the uid of the server process. Version 2.33.10 contains a check for whether a command is allowed when using shell. | |||||
| CVE-2025-52690 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH | ||
| Successful exploitation of the vulnerability could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root, potentially leading to the loss of confidentiality, integrity, availability, and full control of the access point. | |||||
| CVE-2025-52688 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL | ||
| Successful exploitation of the vulnerability could allow an attacker to inject commands with root privileges on the access point, potentially leading to the loss of confidentiality, integrity, availability, and full control of the access point. | |||||