Researcher Uncovers 30+ Flaws in AI Coding Tools Enabling Data Theft and RCE Attacks
Vulnerabilities mentionedAll →
| CVE | Vulnerability | CVSS | EPSS | Flags | Affected | Exposure | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-49150 | Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Prior to 0.51.0, by default, the setting json.schemaDownload.enable was set to True. This means that by writing a JSON file, an attacker can trigger an arbitrary HTTP GET request that does not require user confirmation. Since the Cursor Agent can edit JSON files, this means a malicious agent, for example, after a prompt injection attack already succeeded, could trigger a GET request to an attacker controlled URL, potentially exfiltrating other data the agent may have access to. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.51.0. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 5.9 | <1% | — | — | ||
| CVE-2025-53097 | Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent. Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent. Prior to version 3.20.3, there was an issue where the Roo Code agent's `search_files` tool did not respect the setting to disable reads outside of the VS Code workspace. This means that an attacker who was able to inject a prompt into the agent could potentially read a sensitive file and then write the information to a JSON schema. Users have the option to disable schema fetching in VS Code, but the feature is enabled by default. For users with this feature enabled, writing to the schema would trigger a network request without the user having a chance to deny. This issue is of moderate severity, since it requires the attacker to already be able to submit prompts to the agent. Version 3.20.3 fixed the issue where `search_files` did not respect the setting to limit it to the workspace. This reduces the scope of the damage if an attacker is able to take control of the agent through prompt injection or another vector. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 7.5 | <1% |
| — | ||
| CVE-2025-53536 | Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent. Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent. Prior to 3.22.6, if the victim had "Write" auto-approved, an attacker with the ability to submit prompts to the agent could write to VS Code settings files and trigger code execution. There were multiple ways to achieve that. One example is with the php.validate.executablePath setting which lets you set the path for the php executable for syntax validation. The attacker could have written the path to an arbitrary command there and then created a php file to trigger it. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.22.6. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 8.1 | <1% |
| — | ||
| CVE-2025-53773 | Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio allows an unauthorized attacker to execu Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 7.8 | 3% | PoC |
| — | |
| CVE-2025-54130 | Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Cursor allows writing in-workspace files with no user approval in versions less than 1.3.9. If the file is a dotfile, editing it requires approval but creating a new one doesn't. Hence, if sensitive editor files, such as the .vscode/settings.json file don't already exist in the workspace, an attacker can chain a indirect prompt injection vulnerability to hijack the context to write to the settings file and trigger RCE on the victim without user approval. This is fixed in version 1.3.9. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 9.8 | <1% |
| — | ||
| CVE-2025-55012 | Zed is a multiplayer code editor. Zed is a multiplayer code editor. Prior to version 0.197.3, in the Zed Agent Panel allowed for an AI agent to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) by bypassing user permission checks. An AI Agent could have exploited a permissions bypass vulnerability to create or modify a project-specific configuration file, leading to the execution of arbitrary commands on a victim's machine without the explicit approval that would otherwise be required. This vulnerability has been patched in version 0.197.3. A workaround for this issue involves either avoid sending prompts to the Agent Panel, or to limit the AI Agent's file system access. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 8.5 | <1% | — | — | ||
| CVE-2025-58335 | In JetBrains Junie before 252.284.66, 251.284.66, 243.284.66, 252.284.61, 251.284.61, 243.284.61, 252.284.50, 252.284.54, 251.284.54, 251.284.50, 243.284.54, 24 In JetBrains Junie before 252.284.66, 251.284.66, 243.284.66, 252.284.61, 251.284.61, 243.284.61, 252.284.50, 252.284.54, 251.284.54, 251.284.50, 243.284.54, 243.284.50 information disclosure was possible via search_project function NVD description · AI analysis pending | 7.5 | <1% |
| — | ||
| CVE-2025-58372 | Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in users' editors. Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in users' editors. Versions 3.25.23 and below contain a vulnerability where certain VS Code workspace configuration files (.code-workspace) are not protected in the same way as the .vscode folder. If the agent was configured to auto-approve file writes, an attacker able to influence prompts (for example via prompt injection) could cause malicious workspace settings or tasks to be written. These tasks could then be executed automatically when the workspace is reopened, resulting in arbitrary code execution. This issue is fixed in version 3.26.0. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 9.8 | <1% |
| — | ||
| CVE-2025-61260 | A vulnerability was identified in OpenAI Codex CLI v0.23.0 and before that enables code execution through malicious MCP (Model Context Protocol) configuration f A vulnerability was identified in OpenAI Codex CLI v0.23.0 and before that enables code execution through malicious MCP (Model Context Protocol) configuration files. The attack is triggered when a user runs the codex command inside a malicious or compromised repository. Codex automatically loads project-local .env and .codex/config.toml files without requiring user confirmation, allowing attackers to embed arbitrary commands that execute immediately. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 9.8 | 7% | — | — | ||
| CVE-2025-61590 | Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Versions 1.6 and below are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) attacks through Visual Studio Code Workspaces. Workspaces allow users to open more than a single folder and save specific settings (pretty similar to .vscode/settings.json) for the folders / project. An untitled workspace is automatically created by VS Code (untitled.code-workspace), which contains all the folders and workspace settings from the user's current session, opening up an entire new attack vector if the user has a .code-workspace file in path (either untitled created automatically or a saved one). If an attacker is able to hijack the chat context of the victim (such as via a compromised MCP server), they can use prompt injection to make the Cursor Agent write into this file and modify the workspace. This leads to a bypass of CVE-2025-54130 which can lead to RCE by writing to the settings section. This issue is fixed in version 1.7. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 7.5 | <1% |
| — | ||
| CVE-2025-64660 | Improper access control in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network. Improper access control in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 8.0 | <1% |
| — |
Full article1,230 words · extracted from thehackernews.com · click to collapse
Ravie LakshmananDec 06, 2025AI Security / Vulnerability
Over 30 security vulnerabilities have been disclosed in various artificial intelligence (AI)-powered Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) that combine prompt injection primitives with legitimate features to achieve data exfiltration and remote code execution.
The security shortcomings have been collectively named IDEsaster by security researcher Ari Marzouk (MaccariTA), who discovered them over the last six months. They affect popular IDEs and extensions such as Cursor, Windsurf, Kiro.dev, GitHub Copilot, Zed.dev, Roo Code, Junie, and Cline, among others. Of these, 24 have been assigned CVE identifiers.
"I think the fact that multiple universal attack chains affected each and every AI IDE tested is the most surprising finding of this research," Marzouk told The Hacker News.
"All AI IDEs (and coding assistants that integrate with them) effectively ignore the base software (IDE) in their threat model. They treat their features as inherently safe because they’ve been there for years. However, once you add AI agents that can act autonomously, the same features can be weaponized into data exfiltration and RCE primitives."
At its core, these issues chain three different vectors that are common to AI-driven IDEs -
- Bypass a large language model's (LLM) guardrails to hijack the context and perform the attacker's bidding (aka prompt injection)
- Perform certain actions without requiring any user interaction via an AI agent's auto-approved tool calls
- Trigger an IDE's legitimate features that allow an attacker to break out of the security boundary to leak sensitive data or execute arbitrary commands
The highlighted issues are different from prior attack chains that have leveraged prompt injections in conjunction with vulnerable tools (or abusing legitimate tools to perform read or write actions) to modify an AI agent's configuration to achieve code execution or other unintended behavior.
What makes IDEsaster notable is that it takes prompt injection primitives and an agent's tools, using them to activate legitimate features of the IDE to result in information leakage or command execution.
Context hijacking can be pulled off in myriad ways, including through user-added context references that can take the form of pasted URLs or text with hidden characters that are not visible to the human eye, but can be parsed by the LLM. Alternatively, the context can be polluted by using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server through tool poisoning or rug pulls, or when a legitimate MCP server parses attacker-controlled input from an external source.
Some of the identified attacks made possible by the new exploit chain is as follows -
- CVE-2025-49150 (Cursor), CVE-2025-53097 (Roo Code), CVE-2025-58335 (JetBrains Junie), GitHub Copilot (no CVE), Kiro.dev (no CVE), and Claude Code (addressed with a security warning) - Using a prompt injection to read a sensitive file using either a legitimate ("read_file") or vulnerable tool ("search_files" or "search_project") and writing a JSON file via a legitimate tool ("write_file" or "edit_file)) with a remote JSON schema hosted on an attacker-controlled domain, causing the data to be leaked when the IDE makes a GET request
- CVE-2025-53773 (GitHub Copilot), CVE-2025-54130 (Cursor), CVE-2025-53536 (Roo Code), CVE-2025-55012 (Zed.dev), and Claude Code (addressed with a security warning) - Using a prompt injection to edit IDE settings files (".vscode/settings.json" or ".idea/workspace.xml") to achieve code execution by setting "php.validate.executablePath" or "PATH_TO_GIT" to the path of an executable file containing malicious code
- CVE-2025-64660 (GitHub Copilot), CVE-2025-61590 (Cursor), and CVE-2025-58372 (Roo Code) - Using a prompt injection to edit workspace configuration files (*.code-workspace) and override multi-root workspace settings to achieve code execution
It's worth noting that the last two examples hinge on an AI agent being configured to auto-approve file writes, which subsequently allows an attacker with the ability to influence prompts to cause malicious workspace settings to be written. But given that this behavior is auto-approved by default for in-workspace files, it leads to arbitrary code execution without any user interaction or the need to reopen the workspace.
With prompt injections and jailbreaks acting as the first step for the attack chain, Marzouk offers the following recommendations -
- Only use AI IDEs (and AI agents) with trusted projects and files. Malicious rule files, instructions hidden inside source code or other files (README), and even file names can become prompt injection vectors.
- Only connect to trusted MCP servers and continuously monitor these servers for changes (even a trusted server can be breached). Review and understand the data flow of MCP tools (e.g., a legitimate MCP tool might pull information from attacker controlled source, such as a GitHub PR)
- Manually review sources you add (such as via URLs) for hidden instructions (comments in HTML / css-hidden text / invisible unicode characters, etc.)
Developers of AI agents and AI IDEs are advised to apply the principle of least privilege to LLM tools, minimize prompt injection vectors, harden the system prompt, use sandboxing to run commands, perform security testing for path traversal, information leakage, and command injection.
The disclosure coincides with the discovery of several vulnerabilities in AI coding tools that could have a wide range of impacts -
- A command injection flaw in OpenAI Codex CLI (CVE-2025-61260) that takes advantage of the fact that the program implicitly trusts commands configured via MCP server entries and executes them at startup without seeking a user's permission. This could lead to arbitrary command execution when a malicious actor can tamper with the repository's ".env" and "./.codex/config.toml" files.
- An indirect prompt injection in Google Antigravity using a poisoned web source that can be used to manipulate Gemini into harvesting credentials and sensitive code from a user's IDE and exfiltrating the information using a browser subagent to browse to a malicious site.
- Multiple vulnerabilities in Google Antigravity that could result in data exfiltration and remote command execution via indirect prompt injections, as well as leverage a malicious trusted workspace to embed a persistent backdoor to execute arbitrary code every time the application is launched in the future.
- A new class of vulnerability named PromptPwnd that targets AI agents connected to vulnerable GitHub Actions (or GitLab CI/CD pipelines) with prompt injections to trick them into executing built-in privileged tools that lead to information leak or code execution.
As agentic AI offerings are becoming increasingly popular in enterprise environments, these findings demonstrate how AI tools expand the attack surface of development machines, often by leveraging an LLM's inability to distinguish between instructions provided by a user to complete a task and content that it may ingest from an external source, which, in turn, can contain an embedded malicious prompt.
"Any repository using AI for issue triage, PR labeling, code suggestions, or automated replies is at risk of prompt injection, command injection, secret exfiltration, repository compromise and upstream supply chain compromise," Aikido researcher Rein Daelman said.
Marzouk also said the discoveries emphasized the importance of "Secure for AI," which is a new paradigm that has been coined by the researcher to tackle security challenges introduced by AI features, thereby ensuring that products are not only secure by default and secure by design, but are also conceived keeping in mind how AI components can be abused over time.
"This is another example of why the 'Secure for AI' principle is needed," Marzouk said. "Connecting AI agents to existing applications (in my case IDE, in their case GitHub Actions) creates new emerging risks."
Found this article interesting? Follow us on Google News, Twitter and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://thehackernews.com/2025/12/researchers-uncover-30-flaws-in-ai.html