VulnerabilityPublished 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59377: feiskyer mcp-kubernetes-server · OS Command Injection

Affects feiskyer mcp-kubernetes-serverSource CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-53355

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 1.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 68% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 on 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 15 Sep 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
feiskyer mcp-kubernetes-server	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-59377, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Immediately audit deployments to identify any instances of feiskyer mcp-kubernetes-server version 0.1.11 or earlier. 2) Restrict network access to the /mcp/kubectl endpoint to trusted internal networks only, using firewall rules or network segmentation to reduce exposure. 3) If possible, disable or restrict the vulnerable endpoint until a patch or update is available. 4) Review and harden input validation and sanitization in any custom integrations or scripts interacting with the mcp-kubernetes-server, especially those invoking shell commands. 5) Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual command execution attempts or anomalies related to the /mcp/kubectl endpoint. 6) Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or updated versions that remove the use of shell=True or properly sanitize inputs. 7) Employ runtime security tools or host-based intrusion detection systems to detect and block suspicious command execution patterns. 8) Educate DevOps and security teams about the risks of shell=True usage and enforce secure coding practices in Kubernetes management tooling. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level controls, endpoint-specific restrictions, and proactive detection tailored to this vulnerability's characteristics.

Description

feiskyer mcp-kubernetes-server through 0.1.11 allows OS command injection, even in read-only mode, via /mcp/kubectl because shell=True is used. NOTE: this is unrelated to mcp-server-kubernetes and CVE-2025-53355.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-59377 depends largely on the adoption of the feiskyer mcp-kubernetes-server product within their Kubernetes infrastructure. If deployed, exploitation could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands on the server hosting the vulnerable service, potentially leading to integrity violations such as unauthorized changes to configurations or data. Although the CVSS score is low and the attack complexity is high, the risk remains significant in sensitive environments where Kubernetes management servers are critical. Integrity loss could disrupt container orchestration or introduce malicious configurations, indirectly affecting service reliability or security posture. Since no confidentiality or availability impacts are indicated, direct data leakage or denial of service is unlikely. However, given the central role of Kubernetes in many European enterprises' cloud and container strategies, any compromise of management components could have cascading effects. The lack of required privileges or user interaction means attackers can attempt exploitation remotely, increasing exposure if the service is internet-facing or accessible from untrusted networks. European organizations with strict regulatory requirements around system integrity and security (e.g., GDPR, NIS Directive) should consider this vulnerability seriously to avoid compliance risks and potential operational disruptions.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS 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.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (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 15 Sep 2025, 13:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats