Cursor vs GitHub Copilot Security
A security-focused comparison of the two most popular AI coding assistants. Understand the risks, permissions, and vulnerabilities of each tool.
Security Quick Comparison
| Security Aspect | Cursor | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| File System Access | Full access | Current file + context |
| Terminal Commands | Yes (can auto-execute) | No |
| MCP Support | Yes (extensible) | No |
| Known CVEs | CVE-2025-54135, 54136 | None published |
| Data Sent to Cloud | Code context | Code context |
| Attack Surface | Large (agentic) | Small (suggestions only) |
Key Security Differences
System Access (Critical Difference)
Cursor
- • Can execute terminal commands
- • Can read/write any file
- • Can browse the internet
- • MCP allows external integrations
- • "Yolo mode" auto-executes commands
Higher risk: Full system compromise possible through prompt injection
GitHub Copilot
- • Code suggestions only
- • Reads files you open
- • No terminal access
- • No external integrations
- • You type/accept all code
Lower risk: Limited to suggesting potentially insecure code
Vulnerability Types
Cursor Vulnerabilities
- Prompt injection → RCE: Malicious content can trigger system commands
- Path traversal: Can access files outside project
- Data exfiltration: Can send data to external servers
- Supply chain: MCP plugins can be malicious
Copilot Vulnerabilities
- Insecure code suggestions: May suggest vulnerable patterns
- Secrets in context: May leak patterns from training data
- License issues: May suggest copyrighted code
- No system access: Can't execute harmful actions
Security Recommendations
Use Cursor When...
- You need multi-file refactoring
- You want AI to run builds/tests
- You work in isolated environments
Secure it: Disable Yolo mode, review commands, don't analyze untrusted content
Use Copilot When...
- You want suggestions only
- Security is a primary concern
- You prefer smaller attack surface
Still review: AI can suggest insecure code—always review suggestions
Security Best Practices for Both
Review all AI-generated code
Neither tool guarantees secure code. Review suggestions for vulnerabilities, hardcoded secrets, and insecure patterns.
Don't process untrusted content
Both tools can be influenced by content they read. Be cautious with external repositories, websites, and documents.
Use security scanning
Run static analysis on AI-generated code before committing. Automated tools catch issues humans miss.
Keep tools updated
Both tools receive security patches. Update regularly to get the latest protections.
Use isolated environments
When possible, run AI tools in containers without access to production credentials or sensitive files.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is more secure, Cursor or Copilot?
Copilot has a smaller attack surface since it only suggests code. Cursor's agentic capabilities (file access, terminal commands) create more potential vulnerabilities. However, both can produce insecure code—the difference is in what an attacker can do through them.
Can Copilot be exploited through prompt injection?
Limited exploitation is possible—malicious code comments could influence suggestions. However, Copilot can't execute commands or access files, so the impact is limited to potentially insecure code suggestions.
Should I disable Cursor's terminal access?
If security is a priority, disable 'Yolo mode' and manually approve all terminal commands. This prevents prompt injection from triggering command execution while still allowing AI-assisted development.
Does either tool send my code to the cloud?
Both send code context to their respective AI services. Copilot sends to GitHub/OpenAI, Cursor to their AI backend. Review each tool's privacy policy and consider enterprise options if handling sensitive code.
Get Starter Scan
Whichever tool you use, scan your code for vulnerabilities before deployment.
Get Starter ScanLast updated: January 2025