VulnerabilityPublished 24 Jan 2025Updated 29 Sep 2025

CVE-2024-35122: IBM · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects IBMSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.8 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.8Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Jan 2025
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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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	Affected 7.2 – 7.5 4 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Implement strict access controls and monitoring on IBM i systems to limit local user privileges and detect unusual configuration changes related to referential constraints.
Enhance user awareness and training programs to reduce the risk of social engineering attacks that could enable privilege misuse.
Regularly audit file permissions and referential constraint configurations to identify and remediate improper privilege assignments.
5. Employ multi-factor authentication and session monitoring for users with access to critical files to reduce the risk of unauthorized privilege use. 6. Consider implementing application-level controls or logging to detect and respond to abnormal file access patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts.

Description

IBM i 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 is vulnerable to a file level local denial of service caused by an insufficient authority requirement. A local non-privileged user can configure a referential constraint with the privileges of a user socially engineered to access the target file.

Impact

For European organizations using IBM i systems in versions 7.2 through 7.5, this vulnerability could lead to localized denial of service conditions on critical files. While the impact on confidentiality and integrity is negligible, availability disruptions can affect business-critical applications relying on these files, potentially causing operational delays or downtime. Industries such as finance, manufacturing, and logistics that depend on IBM i for transaction processing and data management could face interruptions. The requirement for local access and social engineering reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with many users or where insider threats exist. Organizations with less mature internal security awareness programs may be more vulnerable to the social engineering component. Given the low CVSS score, the threat is not urgent but should be addressed to maintain system reliability and prevent potential escalation or chaining with other vulnerabilities.

CWE-266Incorrect Privilege Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7178317 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Oct 2025, 10:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-266

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats