CVE-2025-36225VulnerabilityPublished 9 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-36225: IBM Aspera Faspex · Observable Discrepancy

Affects IBM Aspera FaspexSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% 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:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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 9 Oct 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 2026-10-26.

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

To mitigate CVE-2025-36225, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Restrict and monitor user privileges rigorously to ensure that only necessary users have authenticated access to IBM Aspera Faspex, minimizing the attack surface. 2) Conduct thorough auditing and logging of user activities to detect anomalous access patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. 3) Employ network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of the Faspex system to trusted networks and users only. 4) Engage with IBM support channels to obtain updates on patches or workarounds and apply them promptly once available. 5) Conduct internal security assessments and penetration tests focusing on information disclosure vectors to identify and remediate similar observable discrepancies. 6) Educate users and administrators about the risks of credential compromise and enforce strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication, to reduce the risk of unauthorized access. 7) Consider deploying web application firewalls or intrusion detection systems configured to detect unusual request patterns targeting Faspex endpoints. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on minimizing authenticated user risk, monitoring for subtle exploitation signs, and preparing for patch deployment.

Description

IBM Aspera 5.0.0 through 5.0.13.1 could disclose sensitive user information from the system to an authenticated user due to an observable discrepancy of returned data.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-36225 primarily concerns the confidentiality of sensitive information managed or transferred via IBM Aspera Faspex. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, media, and government that use Faspex for secure file transfers could face unauthorized disclosure of user or system information. This could lead to privacy violations, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR), and potential reputational damage. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise system integrity or availability, the leaked information could be leveraged by attackers to mount more sophisticated attacks, including privilege escalation or lateral movement within networks. The requirement for authentication limits the threat to insiders or compromised accounts, but given the critical nature of data handled by Faspex, even limited information disclosure is significant. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future exploitation, especially if attackers develop automated tools to exploit the observable discrepancy.

CWE-203Observable Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Black Box Reverse Engineering (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7247502 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Oct 2025, 14:22 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-203

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats