CVE-2025-0251VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-0251: HCL Software IEM · Session Fixation

Affects HCL Software IEMSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.6 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.6Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 25 Jul 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 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
HCL Software IEM	Affected =1.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Enforce strict session management policies within HCL IEM, including limiting or disabling concurrent sessions per user account where feasible. 2) Implement session expiration and regeneration mechanisms upon login to prevent session fixation. 3) Use multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of unauthorized access even if session fixation is attempted. 4) Monitor and audit session activity logs for unusual concurrent sessions or repeated login attempts from different IP addresses. 5) Educate users about the risks of session fixation and the importance of logging out from sessions, especially on shared or public devices. 6) Coordinate with HCL Software to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as they become available. 7) Consider network-level controls such as IP whitelisting or VPN access restrictions to limit exposure of the HCL IEM interface. 8) Integrate HCL IEM with centralized identity and access management (IAM) solutions that enforce session policies and anomaly detection. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on session control, user behavior, and integration with broader security frameworks.

Description

HCL IEM is affected by a concurrent login vulnerability. The application allows multiple concurrent sessions using the same user credentials, which may introduce security risks.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability is primarily related to the potential unauthorized access to enterprise monitoring systems. HCL IEM is used to monitor IT infrastructure, applications, and services, so unauthorized session access could reveal sensitive operational metrics, system statuses, or alert information. While the direct impact on confidentiality is low, attackers leveraging session fixation could use the access to gather intelligence or prepare for more severe attacks. The lack of integrity and availability impact reduces the immediate risk of system disruption or data tampering. However, organizations relying heavily on HCL IEM for critical monitoring may face increased risk if attackers maintain persistent access through session fixation. This could be particularly concerning in regulated industries such as finance, healthcare, or critical infrastructure sectors prevalent in Europe, where operational transparency and security are paramount. The requirement for user interaction and high attack complexity somewhat limits the exploitability, but insider threats or social engineering could still facilitate attacks. Overall, the vulnerability represents a moderate operational risk that should be addressed to maintain secure session management and prevent lateral movement within enterprise environments.

CWE-384Session Fixation (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
Authenticating a user, or otherwise establishing a new user session, without invalidating any existing session identifier gives an attacker the opportunity to steal authenticated sessions.
Architecture and Design
Invalidate any existing session identifiers prior to authorizing a new user session.
Architecture and Design
For platforms such as ASP that do not generate new values for sessionid cookies, utilize a secondary cookie. In this approach, set a secondary cookie on the user's browser to a random value and set a session variable to the same value.
Operation · Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Session Management (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V3.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Credential Falsification through Forging (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens (opens in a new tab)
Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (opens in a new tab)
Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) (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=KB0122368 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Aug 2025, 01:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-384

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats