VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2024-42197: HCL Software Workload Scheduler · Plaintext Storage of a Password

Affects HCL Software Workload SchedulerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 10.2.3 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.2.3

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

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

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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 11 Dec 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

Upgrade HCL Software Workload Scheduler to 10.2.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
HCL Software Workload Scheduler	Affected <10.2.3	Fixed in 10.2.3

AI-suggested

Organizations should upgrade HCL Workload Scheduler to version 10.2.3 or later, where this vulnerability is addressed. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict local access to systems running the Workload Scheduler to trusted administrators only, minimizing the risk of unauthorized credential exposure. Implement strict file system permissions to protect credential storage locations, ensuring that only necessary service accounts and administrators have read access. Consider encrypting sensitive configuration files or credentials externally if supported by the environment. Regularly audit and monitor local user activities and access logs to detect any unauthorized attempts to access credential files. Additionally, employ network segmentation and least privilege principles to limit the impact of compromised credentials. Finally, educate system administrators about the risks of plaintext credential storage and encourage the use of secure credential management solutions.

Description

HCL Workload Scheduler stores user credentials in plain text which can be read by a local user.

Impact

For European organizations, the exposure of plaintext credentials in HCL Workload Scheduler can lead to significant confidentiality breaches. Attackers with local access could extract passwords and use them to access other systems or services, potentially enabling lateral movement within networks. This is particularly critical for industries relying heavily on automation and batch processing, such as finance, manufacturing, and telecommunications, where Workload Scheduler is commonly deployed. The vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability but can indirectly facilitate more severe attacks if credentials are misused. Given the medium CVSS score and the requirement for local access, the threat is moderate but should not be underestimated, especially in environments with multiple users or shared access. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for remediation.

CWE-256Plaintext Storage of a Password (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores a password in plaintext within resources such as memory or files.
Architecture and Design
Avoid storing passwords in easily accessible locations.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing cryptographic hashes of passwords as an alternative to storing in plaintext.
A programmer might attempt to remedy the password management problem by obscuring the password with an encoding function, such as base 64 encoding, but this effort does not adequately protect the password because the encoding can be detected and decoded easily.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.7.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

support.hcl-software.com/csm?id=kb_article&sysparm_article=KB0127448 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Dec 2025, 20:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-256

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats