VulnerabilityPublished 27 Mar 2025Updated 1 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-1998: IBM UrbanCode Deploy · Sensitive Data in Logs

Affects IBM UrbanCode DeploySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 27 Mar 2025
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 29 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
IBM UrbanCode Deploy	Affected =7.1 =7.2 =7.3	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-1998, European organizations should: 1) Immediately review and restrict access permissions to log files generated by IBM UrbanCode Deploy to ensure only trusted administrators have read access. 2) Implement strict access controls and monitoring on systems running UCD to detect and prevent unauthorized local access. 3) Regularly audit logs for sensitive information leakage and consider log redaction or encryption mechanisms where feasible. 5) Employ network segmentation and endpoint security controls to limit the ability of attackers to gain local access to deployment servers. 6) Use multi-factor authentication and rotate authentication tokens frequently to reduce the window of opportunity if tokens are exposed. 7) Incorporate this vulnerability into incident response plans and conduct tabletop exercises simulating token leakage scenarios to improve readiness.

Description

IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) through 7.1.2.21, 7.2 through 7.2.3.14, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.0 / IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.4 and 8.1 through 8.1 stores potentially sensitive authentication token information in log files that could be read by a local user.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-1998 can be significant, especially for those heavily reliant on IBM UrbanCode Deploy for their DevOps and continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) workflows. Unauthorized access to authentication tokens could lead to compromise of deployment pipelines, unauthorized code deployments, or access to sensitive production environments. This could result in data breaches, service disruptions, or the introduction of malicious code into production systems. Given the high confidentiality impact, organizations handling sensitive or regulated data (e.g., financial, healthcare, or critical infrastructure sectors) face increased risks of compliance violations under GDPR and other data protection regulations. The vulnerability's requirement for local access means that attackers would need some foothold within the network or system, which could be achieved through other means such as phishing or exploiting other vulnerabilities. Therefore, this vulnerability could be leveraged as part of a multi-stage attack. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits post-disclosure.

CWE-532Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File (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 writes sensitive information to a log file.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Consider seriously the sensitivity of the information written into log files. Do not write secrets into the log files.
Distribution
Remove debug log files before deploying the application into production.
Operation
Protect log files against unauthorized read/write.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Application Logging Vocabulary (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V7.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
V7.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fuzzing for application mapping (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7229034 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Sep 2025, 01:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-532

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats