CVE-2025-15061
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 · uneditedFramelink Figma MCP Server fetchWithRetry Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Framelink Figma MCP Server. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the fetchWithRetry method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. Was ZDI-CAN-27877.
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 confidenceFramelink Figma MCP Server contains a command injection vulnerability in the fetchWithRetry method. The application fails to properly validate user-supplied input before passing it to a system call, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary code in the context of the service account.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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:3.0/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.
-
Confirm Framelink Figma MCP Server installationLocate the Framelink Figma MCP Server package in your environment by searching for files named 'figma-mcp-server', 'framelink', or MCP server configurations in your project directories and node_modules if using Node.jsAffected if The product is present in your environment
-
Identify installed versionRun 'npm list figma-mcp-server' or check package.json for the framelink-figma-mcp-server version entry, or inspect the installed package's version fileAffected if You cannot determine the version or the version is unknown
-
Locate fetchWithRetry methodSearch the codebase for the fetchWithRetry function definition, typically in source files under src/ or lib/ directories of the MCP server packageAffected if The fetchWithRetry method exists in your installation
-
Check if user input reaches the vulnerable methodTrace the code path from external input sources (API endpoints, user parameters, config files) to the fetchWithRetry method call to see if unsanitized user data is passed to itAffected if User-supplied input flows to fetchWithRetry without validation before being used in any system call
You are affected if Framelink Figma MCP Server is installed and user-supplied input can reach the fetchWithRetry method without validation before being used in a system call.
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 dataImplement strict input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied parameters in fetchWithRetry before use in system calls. Prefer parameterized APIs over shell commands, or use allowlist validation for any required string interpolation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-15061 — 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-2025-15061 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