CVE-2025-36005VulnerabilityPublished 24 Jul 2025Updated 17 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-36005: IBM MQ Operator · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects IBM MQ OperatorSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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 24 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 MQ Operator	Affected =2.0.0 <=2.0.29 =3.0.0 =3.0.1 >=3.1.0 <=3.1.3 =3.3.0 =3.4.0 =3.4.1 =3.5.0 =3.5.1 =3.6.0 >=3.2.0 <=3.2.13	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include reviewing network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of IBM MQ Operator endpoints to untrusted networks. 2. Monitor network traffic for unusual TLS session behaviors or proxy anomalies that could indicate exploitation attempts. 3. Implement strict TLS certificate management policies, including certificate pinning where feasible, to reduce reliance on potentially flawed validation mechanisms. 4. Engage with IBM support channels to obtain patches or workarounds as soon as they become available, and prioritize timely deployment. 5. Conduct thorough security assessments and penetration testing focused on TLS session handling within IBM MQ Operator deployments. 6. Use additional encryption layers or VPN tunnels to protect sensitive message traffic beyond TLS. 7. Maintain up-to-date inventory of affected IBM MQ Operator versions and plan for upgrades to versions not impacted by this vulnerability. 8. Educate security teams about this vulnerability to enhance detection and incident response capabilities.

Description

IBM MQ Operator LTS 2.0.0 through 2.0.29, MQ Operator CD 3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.1.0 through 3.1.3, 3.3.0, 3.4.0, 3.4.1, 3.5.0, 3.5.1, 3.6.0, and MQ Operator SC2 3.2.0 through 3.2.13 Internet Pass-Thru could allow a malicious user to obtain sensitive information from another TLS session connection by the proxy to the same hostname and port due to improper certificate validation.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-36005 can be significant, especially for those relying on IBM MQ Operator for secure message queuing and integration across cloud and on-premises environments. The improper certificate validation could allow attackers to intercept sensitive data such as credentials, business-critical messages, or personally identifiable information (PII) transmitted over TLS sessions. This undermines data confidentiality and could lead to compliance violations under GDPR and other data protection regulations. Since IBM MQ is often used in financial services, manufacturing, and government sectors—industries prevalent across Europe—the risk of sensitive data leakage is heightened. The medium severity rating suggests that while exploitation requires high attack complexity, the lack of required privileges or user interaction means attackers could potentially exploit this remotely if they can position themselves on the network path. This could facilitate espionage, data theft, or further lateral movement within affected networks. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for mitigation, but organizations should act proactively given the strategic importance of IBM MQ in critical infrastructure and enterprise systems.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7240431 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Aug 2025, 00:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats