Cursor
Products
1- 2 CVEs
Recent CVEs
2| CVE | Sev | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | KEV | Published | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-62354 | Cri | 0.64 | 9.8 | 0.00 | Nov 26, 2025 | Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('command injection') in Cursor allows an unauthorized attacker to execute commands that are outside of those specified in the allowlist, resulting in arbitrary code execution. | |
| CVE-2025-9190 | Med | 0.31 | — | 0.00 | Aug 26, 2025 | The configuration of Cursor on macOS, specifically the "RunAsNode" fuse enabled, allows a local attacker with unprivileged access to execute arbitrary code that inherits Cursor TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) permissions. Acquired resource access is limited to previously granted permissions by the user. Accessing other resources beyond previously granted TCC permissions will prompt the user for approval in the name of Cursor, potentially disguising attacker's malicious intent. This issue was detected in 15.4.1 version of Cursor. Project maintainers decided not to fix this issue, because a scenario including a local attacker falls outside their defined threat model. |
- risk 0.64cvss 9.8epss 0.00
Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('command injection') in Cursor allows an unauthorized attacker to execute commands that are outside of those specified in the allowlist, resulting in arbitrary code execution.
- risk 0.31cvss —epss 0.00
The configuration of Cursor on macOS, specifically the "RunAsNode" fuse enabled, allows a local attacker with unprivileged access to execute arbitrary code that inherits Cursor TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) permissions. Acquired resource access is limited to previously granted permissions by the user. Accessing other resources beyond previously granted TCC permissions will prompt the user for approval in the name of Cursor, potentially disguising attacker's malicious intent. This issue was detected in 15.4.1 version of Cursor. Project maintainers decided not to fix this issue, because a scenario including a local attacker falls outside their defined threat model.