VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025Updated 30 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-53097: RooCodeInc Roo-Code · Injection

Affects RooCodeInc Roo-CodeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 3.20.3 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.20.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Jun 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 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

Upgrade roocodeinc/Roo-Code to 3.20.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubroocodeinc/Roo-Code`pkg:github/roocodeinc/Roo-Code`Other threats	Affected <3.20.3	Fixed in 3.20.3

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade Roo-Code to version 3.20.3 or later to ensure the `search_files` tool respects workspace boundaries and mitigates unauthorized file reads. Until the upgrade is applied, organizations should consider disabling schema fetching in VS Code to prevent automatic network requests that could leak data. Additionally, organizations should audit and restrict access to the Roo-Code agent, ensuring only trusted users can submit prompts, thereby reducing the risk of prompt injection. Implementing monitoring for unusual network requests originating from development environments can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Security teams should also review and harden the supply chain and development environment security to prevent attackers from injecting malicious prompts. Finally, educating developers about the risks of prompt injection and enforcing strict input validation or sanitization in any custom integrations with Roo-Code can further reduce exposure.

Description

Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent. Prior to version 3.20.3, there was an issue where the Roo Code agent's `search_files` tool did not respect the setting to disable reads outside of the VS Code workspace. This means that an attacker who was able to inject a prompt into the agent could potentially read a sensitive file and then write the information to a JSON schema. Users have the option to disable schema fetching in VS Code, but the feature is enabled by default. For users with this feature enabled, writing to the schema would trigger a network request without the user having a chance to deny. This issue is of moderate severity, since it requires the attacker to already be able to submit prompts to the agent. Version 3.20.3 fixed the issue where `search_files` did not respect the setting to limit it to the workspace. This reduces the scope of the damage if an attacker is able to take control of the agent through prompt injection or another vector.

Impact

For European organizations using Roo-Code versions prior to 3.20.3, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily to confidentiality. If an attacker can inject malicious prompts—potentially via compromised development environments, insider threats, or supply chain attacks—they could read sensitive files outside the intended workspace and exfiltrate data via network requests triggered by schema fetching in VS Code. This could lead to leakage of proprietary source code, credentials, or other confidential information. The impact is heightened in organizations with strict data protection regulations such as GDPR, where unauthorized data disclosure can result in regulatory penalties and reputational damage. However, the requirement for prompt injection limits the likelihood of exploitation, and the absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk. The vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability, so operational disruption is unlikely. Nonetheless, organizations relying heavily on Roo-Code for autonomous coding assistance should consider this a significant confidentiality risk, especially in sectors like finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure where sensitive code and data are prevalent.

CWE-74Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements
Programming languages and supporting technologies might be chosen which are not subject to these issues.
Implementation
Utilize an appropriate mix of allowlist and denylist parsing to filter control-plane syntax from all input.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Double Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jun 2025, 22:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-74

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats