Head to head
Cursor vs Lovable
Comparing 4 documented Cursor incidents against 3 for Lovable.
What these records show
Cursor has the lower average severity among the incidents collected here (7.8 vs 8.7 for Cursor and Lovable, from 4 and 3 incidents). These records can't establish which agent is safer: counts reflect how widely each is used and how often people report failures, not a failure rate.
| Metric | Cursor | Lovable |
|---|---|---|
| Documented incidents | 4 | 3 |
| Average severity | 7.8 | 8.7 |
| Critical | 1 | 2 |
| High | 3 | 1 |
| Source checked | 4 | 1 |
Severity at a glance
Failure modes
The incidents behind these numbers
Cursor
9.0Cursor's terminal sandbox trusted an agent-set working directory, letting zero-click prompt injection escape it and gain code execution (CVE-2026-50548)8.0Malicious cloned repository triggered code execution in Cursor on Windows7.0Cursor agent approved to delete one 18.5GB temp folder instead ran a mis-quoted rmdir that wiped a developer's source, Git repo, and six months of ERP backups7.0Cursor AI agent deleted PocketOS's entire production database and backups in 9 seconds
Lovable
9.0A broken object-level authorization bug let any free Lovable account pull other users' source code, Supabase credentials and AI chat histories for 48 days before Lovable fixed it9.0Lovable-generated apps shipped without adequate Supabase row-level security, leaving databases readable and writable by anyone (CVE-2025-48757)8.0A security researcher found 16 vulnerabilities — including inverted access-control logic — in a Lovable-generated EdTech app, exposing 18,697 users' records and letting anyone delete accounts or grade exams