VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jun 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-25053: IBM Cognos Analytics · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects IBM Cognos AnalyticsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Jun 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
IBM Cognos Analytics	Affected =11.2.0 =11.2.1 =11.2.2 =11.2.3 =11.2.4 =12.0.0 =12.0.1 =12.0.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Monitor IBM’s official security advisories closely and apply patches or updates as soon as they are released to address CVE-2024-25053. 2. Until patches are available, implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict communication between IBM Planning Analytics and IBM Cognos Analytics servers to trusted network segments only. 3. Employ additional transport layer security measures such as mutual TLS authentication with properly validated certificates to supplement the product’s certificate validation. 4. Use network intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) to monitor for anomalous or suspicious traffic patterns between the affected servers. 5. Conduct regular audits of certificate configurations and ensure that only valid, trusted certificates are used in the communication channels. 6. Educate system administrators and security teams about the vulnerability and the importance of verifying the integrity of analytics data and server communications. 7. Consider deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions on servers hosting IBM Cognos Analytics and IBM Planning Analytics to detect potential exploitation attempts. 8. Review and tighten access controls and logging around these analytics systems to facilitate rapid detection and response to any suspicious activity.

Description

IBM Cognos Analytics 11.2.0, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.2.4, 12.0.0, 12.0.1, and 12.0.2 is vulnerable to improper certificate validation when using the IBM Planning Analytics Data Source Connection. This could allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by interfering in the communication path between IBM Planning Analytics server and IBM Cognos Analytics server. IBM X-Force ID: 283364.

Impact

For European organizations, the vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity of critical business intelligence and analytics data processed through IBM Cognos Analytics integrated with IBM Planning Analytics. Attackers exploiting this flaw could manipulate data or commands, leading to erroneous business decisions, financial misreporting, or disruption of planning processes. Sectors such as finance, manufacturing, government, and utilities that rely heavily on accurate analytics and planning data are particularly vulnerable. The inability to trust the authenticity of communications between analytics servers could also undermine compliance with data integrity regulations such as GDPR, especially if manipulated data leads to incorrect reporting or decision-making. Although confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the integrity compromise can have cascading effects on operational reliability and trust in analytics outputs. The medium severity suggests the threat is significant but requires sophisticated attack conditions, limiting widespread exploitation but not eliminating risk for targeted attacks. Organizations with complex, interconnected analytics environments are at higher risk due to the potential for lateral movement and data manipulation.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 23:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats