CVE-2025-27367VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jul 2025Updated 24 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-27367: IBM OpenPages with Watson · Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security

Affects IBM OpenPages with WatsonSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 8 Jul 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
IBM OpenPages with Watson	Affected =8.3 =9.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Enforce strict server-side validation of all input data for GRC objects, ensuring that required fields and data types are validated independently of client-side controls. 2) Conduct a thorough review and hardening of the IBM OpenPages application configuration to detect and block malformed or incomplete payloads at the server level. 3) Implement enhanced monitoring and alerting on anomalous data submissions or changes to critical GRC data fields, focusing on unusual patterns that bypass normal validation workflows. 4) Restrict and audit user privileges to minimize the number of users with write access to sensitive GRC data, applying the principle of least privilege. 5) Employ multi-factor authentication and session management controls to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 6) Engage with IBM support or security advisories to obtain and apply patches or updates once available. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on input validation and data integrity controls within OpenPages. 8) Train administrators and users on the risks of client-side validation bypass and the importance of reporting suspicious behavior. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on server-side validation enforcement, privilege management, and anomaly detection tailored to the affected product and vulnerability.

Description

IBM OpenPages with Watson 8.3 and 9.0 is vulnerable to improper input validation due to bypassing of client-side validation for the data types and requiredness of fields for GRC Objects when an authenticated user sends a specially crafted payload to the server allowing for data to be saved without storing the required fields.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in regulated industries such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of governance, risk, and compliance data managed within IBM OpenPages with Watson. Manipulation or omission of required fields in GRC objects can lead to inaccurate compliance reporting, flawed risk assessments, and ultimately regulatory non-compliance, which can result in legal penalties, reputational damage, and financial losses. Since IBM OpenPages is widely used by large enterprises and public sector organizations in Europe for integrated risk management, the impact could be substantial if exploited. The vulnerability requires authenticated access, so the threat is primarily from insider threats or attackers who have obtained legitimate credentials. The absence of confidentiality and availability impacts means data leakage or system downtime is unlikely, but the integrity compromise can severely affect decision-making and audit trails. Organizations relying heavily on automated compliance workflows and reporting may face operational disruptions and increased scrutiny from regulators if data integrity is compromised.

CWE-602Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely.
Architecture and Design
If some degree of trust is required between the two entities, then use integrity checking and strong authentication to ensure that the inputs are coming from a trusted source.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Manipulating Hidden Fields (opens in a new tab)
Create Malicious Client (opens in a new tab)
Removing Important Client Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Removing/short-circuiting 'Purse' logic: removing/mutating 'cash' decrements (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7239155 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Aug 2025, 00:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-602

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats