“Is Cursor safe?” is the wrong question. The right question is: “What security gaps does Cursor-generated code typically have, and how do I address them?”

I’ve analyzed hundreds of Cursor-generated codebases. Here’s what the data shows.

What Cursor Does Well

Let’s start with the positives. Cursor-generated code has real strengths:

Code Structure Cursor produces well-organized code. Functions are properly scoped. File organization makes sense. Naming conventions are consistent. This isn’t trivial; poor structure creates maintenance nightmares.

Syntax Correctness The code runs. Error rates for basic syntax issues are very low. You won’t spend hours debugging missing semicolons or malformed objects.

Framework Conventions Cursor follows framework conventions reasonably well. Next.js apps use the App Router correctly. React components follow functional patterns. Express apps use middleware appropriately.

Modern Patterns Generated code tends toward modern JavaScript/TypeScript patterns: async/await over callbacks, destructuring, optional chaining. The code feels contemporary.

Where Cursor Consistently Fails

The patterns are predictable. Understanding them lets you review efficiently.

1. CORS Configuration

Cursor defaults to permissive CORS configurations in nearly every API it generates.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14

// What Cursor typically generates
const cors = require('cors');
app.use(cors()); // Defaults to origin: '*'

// Or explicitly permissive
app.use(cors({ origin: '*', credentials: true }));

// What you need for production
app.use(cors({
  origin: process.env.ALLOWED_ORIGINS?.split(',') || [],
  credentials: true,
  methods: ['GET', 'POST', 'PUT', 'DELETE'],
  allowedHeaders: ['Content-Type', 'Authorization']
}));

Why Cursor does this: Development convenience. origin: '*' works everywhere during development. The AI optimizes for “working” over “secure.”

2. Missing Input Validation

Cursor trusts user input. Almost every generated API endpoint accepts request data without validation.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

// Cursor-generated route handler
app.post('/api/users', async (req, res) => {
  const { email, password, role } = req.body;

  const user = await db.user.create({
    data: { email, password, role } // No validation!
  });

  res.json(user);
});

// What you need
app.post('/api/users', async (req, res) => {
  const { email, password, role } = req.body;

  // Validate input
  if (!email || !isValidEmail(email)) {
    return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Invalid email' });
  }
  if (!password || password.length < 8) {
    return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Password too short' });
  }
  if (role && !['user', 'admin'].includes(role)) {
    return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Invalid role' });
  }

  // Hash password
  const hashedPassword = await bcrypt.hash(password, 12);

  const user = await db.user.create({
    data: { email, password: hashedPassword, role: role || 'user' }
  });

  res.json({ id: user.id, email: user.email });
});

Why Cursor does this: Training data includes many examples without validation. The AI learns that endpoints “work” without it.

3. Insecure Authentication Patterns

Authentication code from Cursor often contains fundamental flaws that aren’t visible without security expertise.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

// Cursor-generated auth middleware
const authenticate = (req, res, next) => {
  const token = req.headers.authorization?.split(' ')[1];

  if (token) {
    const decoded = jwt.decode(token); // decode, not verify!
    req.user = decoded;
    next();
  } else {
    res.status(401).json({ error: 'Unauthorized' });
  }
};

// Secure version
const authenticate = (req, res, next) => {
  const token = req.headers.authorization?.split(' ')[1];

  if (!token) {
    return res.status(401).json({ error: 'No token provided' });
  }

  try {
    const decoded = jwt.verify(token, process.env.JWT_SECRET);
    req.user = decoded;
    next();
  } catch (error) {
    res.status(401).json({ error: 'Invalid token' });
  }
};

Why Cursor does this: Both patterns appear in training data. The AI doesn’t understand that decode provides no security.

4. Environment Variable Exposure

Cursor frequently generates code that exposes environment variables to the client.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14

// Cursor-generated API client initialization
// In a client-side file
const apiClient = axios.create({
  baseURL: process.env.API_URL,
  headers: {
    'Authorization': `Bearer ${process.env.API_SECRET}` // Exposed!
  }
});

// In Next.js, only NEXT_PUBLIC_ vars are safe for client
const apiClient = axios.create({
  baseURL: process.env.NEXT_PUBLIC_API_URL,
  // Auth should happen server-side, not with exposed secrets
});

Why Cursor does this: The pattern “works” in many contexts. The AI doesn’t distinguish between server and client execution environments.

5. SQL Query Construction

When Cursor generates database queries, string interpolation appears frequently.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

// Cursor-generated query
const searchUsers = async (name) => {
  const result = await db.query(
    `SELECT * FROM users WHERE name LIKE '%${name}%'`
  );
  return result.rows;
};

// Parameterized version
const searchUsers = async (name) => {
  const result = await db.query(
    'SELECT * FROM users WHERE name LIKE $1',
    [`%${name}%`]
  );
  return result.rows;
};

Why Cursor does this: String interpolation is more common in training data because it’s what tutorials show for simplicity.

Security Review Checklist for Cursor Code

Comparing Cursor to Alternatives

How does Cursor stack up against other AI coding tools?

The differences are marginal. All AI coding tools produce code with similar vulnerability patterns. Cursor isn’t uniquely insecure; it’s representative of the category.

When Cursor Code Is Safe Enough

Context matters. Not every application needs enterprise security.

Lower Risk Applications:

• Internal tools with trusted users
• Prototypes that won’t handle real data
• Personal projects without sensitive data
• Demo applications for presentations

Higher Risk Applications Requiring Extra Review:

• Applications handling payments
• Systems with personal user data
• Public-facing APIs
• Applications requiring compliance (HIPAA, SOC2, PCI)

Improving Cursor Output

You can guide Cursor toward more secure patterns:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

// Instead of: "Create a user registration endpoint"

// Try: "Create a user registration endpoint with:
// - Input validation for email format and password strength
// - Password hashing with bcrypt
// - Rate limiting
// - Sanitized error responses
// - Parameterized database queries"

More specific prompts produce more secure code. But relying on prompts alone isn’t sufficient for production applications.

FAQ

Conclusion

Cursor makes you faster. It doesn’t make you safer. The productivity gains are real, but so are the security gaps.

The developers shipping secure Cursor-generated applications aren’t using a secret prompt. They’re running security scans, reviewing patterns, and fixing issues before deployment.

Is Cursor code safe? With proper review, it can be.