VulnerabilityPublished 5 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-15335: Tanium Threat Response · Incorrect Default Permissions

Affects Tanium Threat ResponseSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium · fixed in 4.9.324 : update Tanium Threat Response when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.9.324, 4.6.536, 4.5.266

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
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: 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: 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 5 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

Upgrade Tanium Threat Response to 4.9.324, 4.6.536 or 4.5.266.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
TaniumThreat Response	Affected >=4.9.0 <4.9.324	Fixed in 4.9.324
TaniumThreat Response	Affected >=4.6.0 <4.6.536	Fixed in 4.6.536
TaniumThreat Response	Affected >=4.5.0 <4.5.266	Fixed in 4.5.266

CPE configurations (3)

cpe:2.3:a:tanium:service_threatresponse:4.5.265:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:tanium:service_threatresponse:4.6.535:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:tanium:service_threatresponse:4.9.323:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

1. 2. Conduct an immediate audit of permission settings within Tanium Threat Response to identify and correct any overly permissive configurations, ensuring the principle of least privilege is enforced. 3. Restrict network access to Tanium management interfaces to trusted administrative networks and implement strong authentication controls to limit exposure. 4. Employ network segmentation to isolate Tanium servers from general user networks, reducing the attack surface. 5. Enhance monitoring and logging around Tanium Threat Response activities to detect any unusual access patterns or attempts to exploit permission weaknesses. 6. Educate security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid response and containment if suspicious activity is detected. 7. Consider compensating controls such as additional encryption of sensitive data within Tanium or use of endpoint protection layers to mitigate potential data exposure.

Description

Tanium addressed an information disclosure vulnerability in Threat Response.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-15335 is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information managed or monitored by Tanium Threat Response. This could include endpoint telemetry, threat intelligence data, or internal security configurations, which if exposed, may aid attackers in further targeting or evading defenses. Confidentiality breaches can lead to compliance issues under GDPR, especially if personal or sensitive data is involved. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the leakage of security-related information can weaken an organization's defensive capabilities. Enterprises relying heavily on Tanium for endpoint security and incident response may face increased risk of reconnaissance by threat actors. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate risk level, but the ease of remote exploitation without user interaction elevates the urgency for remediation. Organizations in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure in Europe must be particularly vigilant to avoid reputational damage and regulatory penalties.

References

security.tanium.com/TAN-2025-027 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…