VulnerabilityPublished 17 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-63916: MyScreenTools · OS Command Injection

Affects MyScreenToolsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 1.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 75% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 17 Nov 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
GitHubluotengyuan/MyScreenTools`pkg:github/luotengyuan/MyScreenTools`Other threats	Affected =2.2.1.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict access to MyScreenTools v2.2.1.0 installations, limiting usage to trusted personnel only.
Monitor and audit usage logs for suspicious command execution or unexpected file path inputs.
Employ application whitelisting and endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to detect anomalous cmd.exe invocations originating from MyScreenTools.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization at the application level if source code modification is possible, ensuring all file paths are properly escaped or validated before command execution.
Use least privilege principles to run MyScreenTools under accounts with minimal permissions to limit potential damage.
Network segmentation can help contain any compromise resulting from exploitation.
Engage with the software vendor for patches or updates; apply them promptly once available.
Educate users on the risks of executing untrusted files or inputs within the application environment.
Consider alternative tools without this vulnerability for GIF compression until a fix is released.

Description

MyScreenTools v2.2.1.0 contains a critical OS command injection vulnerability in the GIF compression tool. The application fails to properly sanitize user-supplied file paths before passing them to cmd.exe, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary system commands with the privileges of the user running the application. The vulnerability exists in the CMD() function within GIFSicleTool\Form_gif_sicle_tool.cs, which constructs shell commands by concatenating unsanitized user input (file paths) and executes them via cmd.exe.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of CVE-2025-63916 could lead to unauthorized command execution on systems running MyScreenTools v2.2.1.0, potentially resulting in data breaches, system manipulation, or lateral movement within networks. Given the high confidentiality and integrity impact, sensitive information could be exposed or altered, undermining compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. The vulnerability requires local privileges, so initial access vectors may include phishing or insider threats. Organizations relying on this software for image processing or related workflows may face operational disruptions if attackers leverage this flaw. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits rapidly after disclosure. European entities with critical infrastructure or intellectual property managed via affected systems are particularly at risk of espionage or sabotage.

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 24 Nov 2025, 18:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats