VulnerabilityPublished 17 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-12755: IBM MQ Operator · Log Injection

Affects IBM MQ OperatorSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 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
IBMMQ Operator	Affected ≥ SC2: v3.2.0, ≤ 3.2.21 ≥ CD: v3.3.0, ≤ 3.8.1 ≥ LTS: v2.0.0, ≤ 2.0.29	Fixed in–
IBMsupplied MQ Advanced container images	Affected ≥ SC2: 9.4.0.6, ≤ r1, 9.4.0.6-r2, 9.4.0.7-r1, 9.4.0.10-r1, 9.4.0.10-r2, 9.4.0.11-r1, 9.4.0.11-r2, 9.4.0.11-r3, 9.4.0.12-r1, 9.4.0.15-r1 - 9.4.0.15-r4, 9.4.0.16-r1, 9.4.0.16-r2, 9.4.0.17-r1CD: 9.4.1.0-r1, 9.4.1.0-r2, 9.4.1.1-r1, 9.4.2.0-r1, 9.4.2.0-r2, 9.4.2.1-r1, 9.4.2.1-r2, 9.4.3.0-r1, 9.4.3.0-r2, 9.4.3.1-r1 - 9.4.3.1-r3, 9.4.4.0-r1 - 9.4.4.0-r4, 9.4.4.1-r1LTS: 9.3.0.0-r1, 9.3.0.0-r2, 9.3.0.0-r3, 9.3.0.1-r1, 9.3.0.1-r2, 9.3.0.1-r3, 9.3.0.1-r4, 9.3.0.3-r1, 9.3.0.4-r1, 9.3.0.4-r2, 9.3.0.5-r1, 9.3.0.5-r2, 9.3.0.5-r3, 9.3.0.6-r1, 9.3.0.10-r1, 9.3.0.10-r2, 9.3.0.11-r1,9.3.0.11-r2, 9.3.0.15-r1, 9.3.0.16-r1, 9.3.0.16-r2, 9.3.0.17-r1, 9.3.0.17-r2, 9.3.0.17-r3, 9.3.0.20-r1, 9.3.0.20-r2, 9.3.0.21-r1, 9.3.0.21-r2, 9.3.0.21-r3, 9.3.0.25-r1, 9.4.0.0-r1, 9.4.0.0-r2, 9.4.0.0-r3, 9.4.0.5-r1, 9.4.0.5-r2	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (2)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:mq_operator:3.2.21:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:mq_advanced:9.4.0.6-r1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-12755, European organizations should: 1) Monitor IBM’s security advisories closely and apply patches or updates as soon as they become available for affected IBM MQ Operator and MQ Advanced container images. 2) Restrict local access to MQ Operator environments by enforcing strict access controls, network segmentation, and role-based access to minimize the risk of unauthorized users injecting malicious log data. 3) Implement log integrity verification mechanisms such as cryptographic signing or checksums to detect tampering. 4) Enhance monitoring and alerting on log anomalies that could indicate injection attempts, including unusual characters or patterns in log entries. 5) Review and harden container security configurations to limit exposure of MQ Advanced container images. 6) Educate administrators and security teams about the risks of log injection and the importance of log hygiene. 7) Consider deploying centralized log management solutions that normalize and sanitize logs before storage or analysis to reduce the impact of injected malicious content. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, log integrity, and proactive detection tailored to the IBM MQ environment.

Description

IBM MQ Operator (SC2 v3.2.0–3.8.1, LTS v2.0.0–2.0.29) and IBM‑supplied MQ Advanced container images (across affected SC2, CD, and LTS 9.3.x–9.4.x releases) contain a vulnerability where log messages are not properly neutralized before being written to log files. This flaw could allow an unauthorized user to inject malicious data into MQ log entries, potentially leading to misleading logs, log manipulation, or downstream log‑processing issues.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on IBM MQ Operator for critical messaging and integration services, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity and reliability of log data. Manipulated logs can obscure malicious activities, complicate forensic analysis, and reduce trust in audit trails, which are essential for compliance with regulations such as GDPR and NIS Directive. Industries with stringent logging requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face increased operational risks if attackers exploit this flaw to inject misleading log entries. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise data confidentiality or system availability, the potential for log tampering could delay detection of other attacks or system faults. Organizations using containerized IBM MQ deployments may be particularly exposed if local access controls are weak. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers could develop techniques to leverage this vulnerability for evasion or persistence. Overall, the impact is moderate but significant in environments where log integrity is critical for security and compliance.

CWE-117Improper Output Neutralization for Logs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A09:2025: Security Logging & Alerting Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Application Logging Vocabulary (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V7.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Audit Log Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Log Injection-Tampering-Forging (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7260087 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (2)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Feb 2026, 08:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-117

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats