VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-36039: IBM Aspera Faspex · Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security

Affects IBM Aspera FaspexSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% 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:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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 30 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 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 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 Aspera Faspex	Affected =5.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

2) Implement strict access controls and role-based permissions within Faspex to limit the number of users with elevated privileges, reducing the attack surface. 3) Conduct thorough audits of user activities and enforce logging and monitoring to detect anomalous or unauthorized actions promptly. 4) Employ network segmentation to isolate Faspex servers and limit exposure to only trusted internal networks and users. 5) Where possible, supplement Faspex with additional server-side validation mechanisms or proxy controls to enforce authorization policies beyond client-side checks. 6) Educate users about the risks of credential misuse and enforce strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication, to reduce the risk of compromised accounts being exploited. 7) Regularly review and update security policies to ensure that client-side enforcement is not relied upon for critical security decisions.

Description

IBM Aspera Faspex 5.0.0 through 5.0.12.1 could allow an authenticated user to perform unauthorized actions due to client-side enforcement of sever side security mechanisms,

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on IBM Aspera Faspex for secure file transfers involving sensitive or regulated data. Unauthorized actions by authenticated users could lead to data tampering, unauthorized data distribution, or disruption of critical workflows. This could compromise compliance with stringent European data protection regulations such as GDPR, potentially resulting in legal penalties and reputational damage. Industries such as media production, financial services, and government agencies in Europe that use Faspex for transferring large volumes of sensitive files are particularly at risk. The integrity compromise could also facilitate insider threats or lateral movement within networks, increasing the risk of broader security incidents. Since the vulnerability does not affect confidentiality directly, data leakage risk is lower, but the ability to perform unauthorized actions can still lead to significant operational and security consequences.

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/7241007 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Aug 2025, 01:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-602

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats