CVE-2025-66401
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 · uneditedMCP Watch is a comprehensive security scanner for Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. In 0.1.2 and earlier, the MCPScanner class contains a critical Command Injection vulnerability in the cloneRepo method. The application passes the user-supplied githubUrl argument directly to a system shell via execSync without sanitization. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the host machine by appending shell metacharacters to the URL.
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 confidenceThe MCPScanner class in MCP Watch versions 0.1.2 and earlier contains a command injection vulnerability in the cloneRepo method. The application passes the user-supplied githubUrl parameter directly to Node.js execSync without any sanitization or validation, allowing attackers to inject shell metacharacters and execute arbitrary commands on the host system.
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<= 0.1.2CVSS 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 if MCP Watch package is installedRun 'npm list mcp-watch' or check your project's package.json dependencies for '@kapilduraphe/mcp-watch' or 'mcp-watch'Affected if The package is present in the project dependencies
-
Verify the installed versionRun 'npm list mcp-watch --depth=0' to see the exact version installed, or inspect package-lock.json for the mcp-watch entryAffected if The installed version is 0.1.2 or earlier
-
Identify usage of MCPScanner classSearch source code for imports or usage of 'MCPScanner' class (e.g., grep -r 'MCPScanner' or inspect the codebase)Affected if The MCPScanner class is imported or instantiated in your code
-
Check for cloneRepo method invocationSearch for calls to 'cloneRepo' method in the codebase (e.g., grep -r 'cloneRepo')Affected if The cloneRepo method is being called in your application code
-
Determine if githubUrl input is user-controlledTrace the data flow: identify where the githubUrl parameter originates (request parameters, API inputs, config files) and whether it can be supplied by external usersAffected if External or untrusted users can supply the githubUrl value that reaches cloneRepo
You are affected if MCP Watch version 0.1.2 or earlier is installed AND your application uses the MCPScanner class cloneRepo method with user-supplied githubUrl input that reaches execSync without validation.
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.
dbcve · scopedSanitize and validate the githubUrl input before passing to execSync. Use parameterized APIs that avoid shell execution, implement allowlist validation for expected URL formats, or use library-specific methods instead of shell commands for repository operations.
Latest version after 0.1.2 (version containing commit e7da78c5b4b960f8b66c254059ad9ebc544a91a6)
- Review the vendor patch commit at https://github.com/kapilduraphe/mcp-watch/commit/e7da78c5b4b960f8b66c254059ad9ebc544a91a6 to understand the sanitization fix applied to the cloneRepo method
- If using a versioned release, upgrade to the version containing the fix (likely a release after 0.1.2)
- If building from source, ensure you pull the latest code that includes the commit e7da78c5b4b960f8b66c254059ad9ebc544a91a6
- Verify that user-supplied githubUrl input is properly sanitized before being passed to any shell execution function (execSync, exec, spawn, etc.)
- Test the fix by attempting to inject shell metacharacters (e.g., ; whoami, | ls, `command`) into the githubUrl parameter to confirm the vulnerability is mitigated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-66401 — 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-2025-66401 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