CVE-2025-11445VulnerabilityPublished 8 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11445: Kilo Code · Injection

Affects Kilo CodeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Oct 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Kilo Code	Affected =4.0 =4.1 =4.2 =4.3 =4.4 =4.5 =4.6 =4.7 =4.8 =4.9 =4.10 =4.11 =4.12 =4.13 =4.14 =4.15 =4.16 =4.17 =4.18 =4.19 =4.20 =4.21 =4.22 =4.23 =4.24 =4.25 =4.26 =4.27 =4.28 =4.29 =4.30 =4.31 =4.32 =4.33 =4.34 =4.35 =4.36 =4.37 =4.38 =4.39 =4.40 =4.41 =4.42 =4.43 =4.44 =4.45 =4.46 =4.47 =4.48 =4.49 =4.50 =4.51 =4.52 =4.53 =4.54 =4.55 =4.56 =4.57 =4.58 =4.59 =4.60 =4.61 =4.62 =4.63 =4.64 =4.65 =4.66 =4.67 =4.68 =4.69 =4.70 =4.71 =4.72 =4.73 =4.74 =4.75 =4.76 =4.77 =4.78 =4.79 =4.80 =4.81 =4.82 =4.83 =4.84 =4.85 =4.86.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Apply official patches from the Kilo Code vendor as soon as they become available to remediate the injection vulnerability. 2. Until patches are deployed, implement strict input validation and sanitization on all user inputs processed by the ClineProvider function or related components to prevent injection payloads. 3. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block injection attempts targeting the affected endpoints. 4. Conduct security awareness training to reduce the risk of successful social engineering or phishing that could trigger user interaction required for exploitation. 5. Monitor application logs and network traffic for unusual or suspicious input patterns indicative of injection attempts. 6. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) tools if available to detect and block injection attacks in real time. 7. Review and restrict user privileges and access controls to minimize potential damage if exploitation occurs. 8. Maintain an incident response plan tailored to injection attacks to enable rapid containment and remediation.

Description

A vulnerability was detected in Kilo Code up to 4.86.0. Affected is the function ClineProvider of the file src/core/webview/ClineProvider.ts of the component Prompt Handler. Performing manipulation results in injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. Applying a patch is the recommended action to fix this issue.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk, especially for those relying on Kilo Code in web-facing applications or internal tools. Injection vulnerabilities can lead to unauthorized data manipulation, partial service disruption, or unauthorized command execution, impacting confidentiality, integrity, and availability to some extent. The requirement for user interaction limits automated exploitation but does not eliminate risk, as phishing or social engineering could facilitate attacks. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on web applications, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face increased exposure. The public availability of exploit code raises the likelihood of opportunistic attacks, potentially leading to data breaches or operational interruptions. Additionally, regulatory frameworks like GDPR impose strict data protection requirements, so exploitation causing data leakage could result in significant compliance penalties. The medium severity suggests that while the threat is not critical, it should be addressed promptly to avoid escalation or chaining with other vulnerabilities.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…