VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-13211: IBM Aspera Orchestrator · Improper Control of Interaction Frequency

Affects IBM Aspera OrchestratorSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavencom.ibm.aspera/orchestrator`pkg:maven/com.ibm.aspera/orchestrator`Other threats	Affected =4.0.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-13211, European organizations should first verify the version of IBM Aspera Orchestrator in use and plan for prompt application of vendor patches once released. In the absence of patches, implement strict rate limiting and throttling controls on email service interactions to prevent excessive request frequency. Monitor logs and alerts for unusual patterns of email service usage that could indicate exploitation attempts. Enforce strong authentication and credential management policies to reduce the risk of unauthorized access by insiders or compromised accounts. Network segmentation and access controls can limit exposure of the orchestration service to only trusted users and systems. Additionally, consider deploying anomaly detection tools to identify abnormal interaction frequencies. Regularly review and update incident response plans to address potential denial of service scenarios affecting critical orchestration workflows. Engage with IBM support for any available workarounds or configuration recommendations to harden the email service component.

Description

IBM Aspera Orchestrator 4.0.0 through 4.1.0 could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service in the email service due to improper control of interaction frequency.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential disruption of email services within IBM Aspera Orchestrator workflows. This can lead to delays or failures in automated notifications and process triggers, potentially affecting business continuity, especially in sectors relying on timely file transfers and orchestration such as finance, manufacturing, media, and critical infrastructure. While confidentiality and integrity remain intact, availability degradation can cause operational inefficiencies and increased incident response costs. Organizations with high dependency on Aspera Orchestrator’s email notifications may experience workflow interruptions, impacting service level agreements and customer satisfaction. Additionally, denial of service conditions could be leveraged as part of a broader attack strategy to distract or degrade defenses. The requirement for authenticated access reduces the risk from external attackers but raises concerns about insider threats or compromised credentials within European enterprises.

CWE-799Improper Control of Interaction Frequency (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly limit the number or frequency of interactions that it has with an actor, such as the number of incoming requests.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7254434 (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-799

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats