AgentReadyHomeAgent ListingPricing

← Windows CLI MCP Server

Windows CLI MCP Server — agentic threat model

8.4AIVSS 8.4 · High

The Windows CLI MCP Server presents an extremely high-risk profile because it grants LLMs direct shell access (PowerShell/CMD) to the host system. Its security entirely depends on the robustness of its allow/deny command filters and the sandboxing of the underlying host environment.

OWASP AIVSS score rationale

AIVSS = (CVSS_Base + AARS) × Mitigation_Factor, where AARS = (10 − CVSS_Base) × (Factor_Sum / 10) × ThM
CVSS base 9.8AARS uplift 0.07Factor sum 3.4/10Threat ×1.1Mitigation ×0.85
Autonomy of Action
0.80
Goal-Driven Planning
0.20
Self-Modification
0.10
Dynamic Tool Use
0.90
Persistent Memory
0.10
Contextual Awareness
0.20
Dynamic Identity
0.20
Multi-Agent Interactions
0.10
Non-Determinism
0.50
Opacity & Reflexivity
0.30

Scored with the canonical OWASP AIVSS formula (AIVSS calculator reference); agentic risk factors estimated from the agent’s described capabilities.

MAESTRO 7-layer threat model

Per-layer threats for this agent. Layers tagged “not certain from listing” are general, caveated commentary where the public description didn’t pin that layer.

L1 · Foundation Models⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — The MCP server itself does not bundle a specific foundation model, but it is highly vulnerable to downstream model jailbreaks or prompt injections that force the orchestrating LLM to generate malicious shell commands.

L2 · Data Operations⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — No explicit data operations or vector stores are mentioned, but shell access allows reading/writing arbitrary files on the host system, risking data exfiltration or poisoning of local files.

L3 · Agent Frameworks✓ mapped

The MCP server integrates directly with agent frameworks to expose PowerShell/CMD/Git Bash tools. The primary threat is tool misuse where the agent executes destructive commands (e.g., file deletion, system configuration changes) due to poor orchestration or injection.

L4 · Deployment & Infrastructure✓ mapped

Runs directly on Windows hosts. Without strict sandboxing (e.g., Windows Sandbox, containers), compromise of this service leads to host-level privilege escalation, local file access, and lateral network movement.

L5 · Evaluation & Observability⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — No built-in logging or observability features are detailed beyond standard MCP protocol outputs, creating blind spots for executed shell commands unless external OS-level auditing is configured.

L6 · Security & Compliance (cross-cutting)✓ mapped

Relies on an allow/deny configuration as its primary safety boundary. If misconfigured or bypassed, it fails to meet basic compliance standards (e.g., least privilege) by allowing arbitrary code execution.

L7 · Agent Ecosystem⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — While designed for MCP-compliant ecosystems, there is no native multi-agent coordination, though a compromised agent in a multi-agent system could abuse this server to compromise the host.

MAESTRO — the 7-layer agentic threat-modeling framework (Cloud Security Alliance / Ken Huang).

These scores are auto-generated from public information (the agent's own listing, docs, and repository) using the canonical OWASP AIVSS formula and the MAESTRO framework — an estimate for guidance, not a penetration test, audit, or certification. See the scoring methodology. Are you the vendor? Factual corrections are free.