CVE-2024-43178VulnerabilityPublished 17 Feb 2026Updated 6 Mar 2026

CVE-2024-43178: IBM Concert · Weak Cryptography

Affects IBM ConcertSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% 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:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 17 Feb 2026
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 2026-10-25.

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
IBMConcert	Affected >=1.0.0 <=2.1.0	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (2)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:concert:1.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:concert:2.1.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately inventory their IBM Concert deployments to identify affected versions (1.0.0 through 2.1.0). Until IBM releases official patches, administrators should consider the following mitigations: 1) Disable or restrict network access to IBM Concert instances to trusted internal networks to reduce exposure. 2) Implement network-level encryption (e.g., VPNs or TLS tunnels) to add an additional layer of protection over the weak cryptographic algorithms used internally. 3) Review and harden cryptographic configurations where possible, replacing weak algorithms with strong, industry-standard algorithms such as AES-256 or SHA-2 family. 4) Monitor network traffic and logs for unusual access patterns or attempts to exploit cryptographic weaknesses. 5) Engage with IBM support to obtain guidance on interim fixes or configuration changes. 6) Plan and prioritize upgrading to newer, patched versions of IBM Concert as soon as they become available. 7) Conduct security awareness training for IT staff to recognize the risks associated with weak cryptography and the importance of timely patching. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on compensating controls and proactive monitoring while awaiting vendor remediation.

Description

IBM Concert 1.0.0 through 2.1.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-43178 is the compromise of confidentiality for sensitive information processed or stored by IBM Concert. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to decrypt data that should remain protected, potentially exposing credentials, intellectual property, or personal data. This could lead to data breaches, regulatory non-compliance, reputational damage, and financial losses. Since integrity and availability are not affected, the threat is limited to unauthorized data disclosure rather than system manipulation or denial of service. The high confidentiality impact combined with no required privileges and no user interaction means attackers can remotely target vulnerable systems without insider access or user involvement, increasing risk. However, the high attack complexity reduces the likelihood of mass exploitation, limiting the threat primarily to targeted attacks by skilled adversaries. Organizations relying on IBM Concert in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure are at greater risk due to the sensitivity of their data and regulatory requirements. The absence of known exploits in the wild provides a window for mitigation before active exploitation occurs.

CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7260162 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (2)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Mar 2026, 20:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-327

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats