VulnerabilityPublished 1 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-53104: gluestack-ui · Command Injection

Affects gluestack-uiSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 67% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 1 Jul 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

AI-suggested

Immediately remove or disable the discussion-to-slack.yml GitHub Actions workflow in any gluestack-ui forks or derivatives if the repository has not been updated to include commit e6b4271 or later.
Audit all GitHub Actions workflows in your organization for similar patterns where untrusted input is interpolated directly into shell commands, and refactor to use safer methods such as parameterized commands or environment variables with proper escaping.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization for any user-generated content that may be used in automation scripts or workflows.
Restrict permissions of GitHub Actions runners to the minimum necessary and isolate them from sensitive environments to limit potential damage from compromise.
Monitor GitHub repositories and workflows for unusual activity or unexpected workflow runs triggered by user-generated content.
Educate developers and DevOps teams about secure workflow design and the risks of command injection in CI/CD pipelines.
Keep dependencies and workflows up to date with security patches and subscribe to relevant vulnerability advisories for timely response.

Description

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.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those utilizing gluestack-ui or its forks in their development pipelines that integrate GitHub Actions workflows. Compromise of GitHub Actions runners can lead to unauthorized access to source code, secrets, and deployment environments, potentially resulting in intellectual property theft, supply chain compromise, or further lateral movement within corporate networks. Organizations relying on automated CI/CD processes with GitHub Actions are particularly vulnerable, as the attack vector leverages the integration of untrusted user-generated content in discussions. The impact extends beyond the immediate runner environment because compromised workflows can be used to inject malicious code into software builds or deployment artifacts, undermining software integrity and trust. Given the critical severity and the common use of GitHub Actions in European software development, this vulnerability could disrupt development operations and expose sensitive data if not promptly addressed.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
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
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Jul 2025, 18:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats