CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-63604

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

Published: Nov 18, 2025 | Modified: Nov 18, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A code injection vulnerability exists in baryhuang/mcp-server-aws-resources-python 0.1.0 that allows remote code execution through insufficient input validation in the execute_query method. The vulnerability stems from the exposure of dangerous Python built-in functions (import, getattr, hasattr) in the execution namespace and the direct use of exec() to execute user-supplied code. An attacker can craft malicious queries to execute arbitrary Python code, leading to AWS credential theft (AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID, AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY), file system access, environment variable disclosure, and potential system compromise. The vulnerability allows attackers to bypass intended security controls and gain unauthorized access to sensitive AWS resources and credentials stored in the servers environment.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

Extended Description

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks.

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References