CVE-2025-11491
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA 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.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in the CommandManager function of DesktopCommanderMCP (versions up to 0.2.13). The function in src/command-manager.ts does not properly sanitize user input before passing it to OS command execution, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary shell commands.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 0.2.13CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed versionRun 'npm list desktopcommandermcp' or inspect the package.json dependencies to find the installed version of DesktopCommanderMCPAffected if The installed version is 0.2.13 or lower
-
Locate vulnerable source fileFind and open src/command-manager.ts in the DesktopCommanderMCP installation directoryAffected if The file exists in the installation
-
Inspect CommandManager function for command executionSearch within src/command-manager.ts for the CommandManager function and examine how it executes OS commands - look for patterns like exec(), spawn(), or shell invocation without proper input handlingAffected if The function passes user input directly to OS command execution functions without sanitization (e.g., uses shell:true, string concatenation, or template literals with user data)
-
Verify command injection vectorsTrace the function's input parameters and determine whether any user-controllable data reaches the OS command execution point without validation or escapingAffected if User-controlled input flows to shell commands without sanitization or parameterized execution
A user is affected if DesktopCommanderMCP version 0.2.13 or lower is installed AND the CommandManager function in src/command-manager.ts is being used with unsanitized user input that flows to OS command execution.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to a patched version beyond 0.2.13 once available, and/or implement proper input validation and safe command execution methods (e.g., avoid shell execution, use parameterized commands, sanitize all user-controlled input).
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11491 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-11491 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data