VulnerabilityPublished 19 Mar 2026Updated 20 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-13995: IBM QRadar · Improper validation of syntactic correctness of input

Affects IBM QRadarSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.0 Medium.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 19 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 31 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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
IBMQRadar	Affected =7.5.0	Fixed in–
Ibmibm/qradar`pkg:rpm/ibm/qradar`Other threats	Affected =7.5.0	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (2)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:qradar_security_information_and_event_manager:7.5.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:qradar_security_information_and_event_manager:7.5.0:update_pack_14:*:*:*:*:*:*

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-2025-13995, organizations should first verify whether their QRadar deployments are running affected versions (7.5.0 through 7.5.0 Update Package 14). Until IBM releases an official patch, administrators should enforce strict tenant access controls and audit tenant data access logs for unusual cross-tenant queries. Network segmentation and zero-trust principles should be applied to limit tenant access scopes. Additionally, consider deploying compensating controls such as enhanced monitoring for anomalous data access patterns and restricting administrative privileges to trusted personnel only. Organizations should subscribe to IBM security advisories to promptly apply patches once available. For new deployments, upgrading to later QRadar versions with improved tenant isolation is recommended. Finally, conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on multi-tenant isolation to detect similar vulnerabilities proactively.

Description

IBM QRadar SIEM 7.5.0 through 7.5.0 Update Package 14 could allow an attacker with access to one tenant to access hostname data from another tenant's account.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-13995 is the unauthorized disclosure of hostname data across tenant boundaries in IBM QRadar SIEM environments. This confidentiality breach can expose sensitive network topology information, potentially aiding attackers in reconnaissance and subsequent targeted attacks. While the vulnerability does not allow modification or disruption of services, the leakage of hostname data can undermine trust in multi-tenant environments and violate compliance requirements related to data segregation and privacy. Organizations relying on QRadar for security monitoring may face increased risk of lateral movement by malicious insiders or compromised tenants. The scope of affected systems is limited to QRadar 7.5.0 through 7.5.0 Update Package 14, but given QRadar’s widespread use in government, financial, and critical infrastructure sectors, the impact could be significant in sensitive environments.

CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7266709 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (2)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Mar 2026, 19:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats