VulnerabilityPublished 8 Oct 2025Updated 23 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11491: wonderwhy-er DesktopCommanderMCP · OS Command Injection

Affects wonderwhy-er DesktopCommanderMCPSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 4.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 91% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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: Low
User Interaction: None
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
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: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
wonderwhy-er DesktopCommanderMCP	Affected 0.2.0 – 0.2.13 14 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Monitor wonderwhy-er official channels for patches addressing CVE-2025-11491 and apply updates promptly once available.
Until patches are released, restrict network access to DesktopCommanderMCP services using firewalls or network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted hosts only.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization on any interfaces interacting with the CommandManager function to prevent injection of malicious commands.
Employ application whitelisting and restrict execution privileges on systems running DesktopCommanderMCP to limit the impact of potential command injection.
Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability scans to identify and remediate instances of vulnerable DesktopCommanderMCP versions.
Enhance monitoring and logging for unusual command execution patterns or suspicious activities on affected hosts to enable early detection.
Educate system administrators about the risks and signs of exploitation related to this vulnerability to improve incident response readiness.
Consider deploying host-based intrusion prevention systems (HIPS) that can detect and block command injection attempts targeting the affected software.

Description

A vulnerability was found in wonderwhy-er DesktopCommanderMCP up to 0.2.13. The impacted element is the function CommandManager of the file src/command-manager.ts. Performing manipulation results in os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of CVE-2025-11491 could lead to unauthorized remote command execution on systems running DesktopCommanderMCP, risking confidentiality, integrity, and availability of critical systems. Attackers could execute arbitrary commands to exfiltrate sensitive data, disrupt services, or pivot within networks. Given the software’s role in desktop management, compromise could facilitate widespread control over endpoint devices, impacting operational continuity. The medium CVSS score reflects moderate risk, but the public availability of exploit details increases urgency. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on desktop management tools—such as finance, manufacturing, and government—face elevated risks. Additionally, the vulnerability could be exploited as a foothold in targeted attacks against European enterprises, especially where network segmentation or access controls are weak. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate impact but does not preclude future attacks. Without timely mitigation, the threat could escalate, particularly in environments with exposed or poorly secured DesktopCommanderMCP instances.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Oct 2025, 04:43 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats