CVE-2025-12874VulnerabilityPublished 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-12874: Quest Coexistence Manager for Notes · HTTP Request/Response Smuggling

Affects Quest Coexistence Manager for NotesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Clear

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Supplemental metrics

Provider Urgency: Clear

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Provider Urgency: Clear: Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having no urgency (Informational).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 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 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
Quest Coexistence Manager for Notes	Affected =3.8.2045	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Monitor Quest's official channels for patches or updates addressing CVE-2025-12874 and apply them promptly once available. 2. Implement strict HTTP request validation at web application firewalls (WAFs) or reverse proxies to detect and block malformed requests containing conflicting Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding headers. 3. Deploy network intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures tuned to detect HTTP request smuggling patterns, especially CL.TE vectors. 4. Segment and isolate the Coexistence Manager servers within the network to limit lateral movement if compromised. 5. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on HTTP request handling to identify similar vulnerabilities. 6. Educate IT and security teams about HTTP request smuggling techniques to improve detection and response capabilities. 7. Review and harden access control policies around the affected modules to minimize exposure. 8. Enable detailed logging of HTTP traffic to facilitate forensic analysis in case of suspicious activity.

Description

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') vulnerability in Quest Coexistence Manager for Notes (Free/Busy Connector modules) allows HTTP Request Smuggling via the Content-Length-Transfer-Encoding (CL.TE) attack vector. This could allow an attacker to bypass access controls, poison web caches, hijack sessions, or trigger unintended internal requests. This issue affects Coexistence Manager for Notes 3.8.2045. Other versions may also be affected.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive email scheduling and calendar data, session hijacking of administrative or user accounts, and manipulation or poisoning of web caches that serve internal or external users. This can result in data leakage, disruption of email coexistence services, and potential lateral movement within corporate networks. Given the role of Quest Coexistence Manager in bridging IBM Notes and Microsoft Exchange, disruption or compromise could impact business continuity and confidentiality of communications. Organizations in sectors with high regulatory requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government are particularly at risk due to potential exposure of sensitive personal or classified information. The medium severity rating indicates a moderate but significant risk, especially since no authentication is required and exploitation can be performed remotely over the network. The absence of known exploits suggests a window of opportunity for proactive defense before attackers develop weaponized payloads.

CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
Implementation
Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache.
Implementation
Use only SSL communication.
Implementation
Terminate the client session after each request.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Request Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Dec 2025, 20:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-444

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats