CVE-2025-31979VulnerabilityPublished 28 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-31979: HCL Software BigFix Service Management (SM) · Unrestricted File Upload

Affects HCL Software BigFix Service Management (SM)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% 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:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 28 Aug 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
HCL Software BigFix Service Management (SM)	Affected =23	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations using HCL BigFix SM version 23 should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Immediately audit and monitor file upload functionalities within BigFix SM to detect any anomalous or unauthorized file uploads. 2) Restrict privileges for users who can upload files to the minimum necessary, as the vulnerability requires low privileges but not none. 3) Implement network segmentation to isolate the BigFix management infrastructure from critical systems to limit potential lateral movement. 4) Employ application-layer firewalls or web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious file upload attempts, especially those containing executable or script content. 5) Conduct regular integrity checks on uploaded files and deployed scripts within the BigFix environment to identify unauthorized changes. 6) Stay alert for official patches or updates from HCL Software and apply them promptly once available. 7) Enhance logging and alerting around file upload events and privilege escalations within the BigFix SM environment. 8) Consider temporary disabling or restricting file upload features if feasible until a patch is released. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on privilege management, monitoring, network segmentation, and proactive detection tailored to the BigFix SM context.

Description

A File Upload Validation Bypass vulnerability has been identified in the HCL BigFix SM, where the application fails to properly enforce file type restrictions during the upload process. An attacker may exploit this flaw to upload malicious or unauthorized files, such as scripts, executables, or web shells, by bypassing client-side or server-side validation mechanisms.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk, especially for enterprises relying on HCL BigFix SM for endpoint and service management. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized code execution within the management environment, allowing attackers to manipulate service tickets, deploy malicious payloads to endpoints, or exfiltrate sensitive operational data. This could disrupt IT service workflows and compromise the integrity of managed systems. Given the interconnected nature of IT environments in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure across Europe, an attacker leveraging this vulnerability could gain footholds that facilitate lateral movement and data breaches. The confidentiality and integrity of sensitive organizational data could be compromised, potentially violating GDPR requirements and leading to regulatory penalties. Additionally, the lack of user interaction and low complexity of exploitation increase the likelihood of automated attacks targeting vulnerable installations. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not preclude future exploitation as threat actors often develop exploits following public disclosure.

CWE-434Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #12OWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Architecture and Design
Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Web Service Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
V12.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

support.hcl-software.com/csm?id=kb_article&sysparm_article=KB0123631 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Aug 2025, 17:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-434

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats