How severe is GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6?

GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 has a CVSS score of 5.3/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6?

GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 affects the following packages: mcp-kubernetes-server (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6?

No patched version of mcp-kubernetes-server has shipped for GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.

How do I detect GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for mcp-kubernetes-server, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

How does O3 Security protect against GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6?

O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Is GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6?

GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.3%, placing it in the 20th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

When was GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 was published on September 15, 2025 and was last updated on July 7, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐍

🐍 PyPI

Not in CISA KEV

MEDIUM severity

GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 — mcp-kubernetes-server

MEDIUM

GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) vulnerability in mcp-kubernetes-server. No vendor fix is recorded yet; mitigation options are listed below.

mcp-kubernetes-server has a Command Injection vulnerability

Also known asCVE-2025-59376PYSEC-2026-1619

Published

Sep 15, 2025

Updated

Jul 7, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

None yet

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Sep 24, 2026 · OSV.dev, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

Proof-of-concept exploit code exists

CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs20th percentile — riskier than 20% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 379,145 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐍mcp-kubernetes-server

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

mcp-kubernetes-server does not correctly enforce the --disable-write / --disable-delete protections when commands are chained. The server only inspects the first token to decide whether an operation is write/delete, which allows a read-like command to be followed by a write action using shell metacharacters (e.g., kubectl version; kubectl delete pod <name>). A remote attacker who can invoke the server may therefore bypass the intended write/delete restrictions and perform state-changing operations against the Kubernetes cluster.

Affected versions: through 0.1.11 (no patched release available as of now).

Mitigations:

Run with --disable-kubectl and/or --disable-helm to fully block those execution paths.
Put the server behind an allow-list proxy restricting allowed subcommands.

Affected Packages

1 total

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`mcp-kubernetes-server`	all versions	No fix

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for mcp-kubernetes-server, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Remediation status
No patched version of mcp-kubernetes-server has shipped for GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.
Mitigate without a patch
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

`mcp-kubernetes-server` does not correctly enforce the `--disable-write` / `--disable-delete` protections when commands are chained. The server only inspects the first token to decide whether an operation is write/delete, which allows a read-like command to be followed by a write action using shell metacharacters (e.g., `kubectl version; kubectl delete pod <name>`). A remote attacker who can invoke the server may therefore bypass the intended write/delete restrictions and perform state-changing operations against the Kubernetes cluster. **Affected versions:** through `0.1.11` (no patched rele

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-hjm5-xgj8-vwj6 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works