CVE-2025-36253VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026Updated 4 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-36253: IBM Concert · Use of a One-Way Hash without a Salt

Affects IBM ConcertSource 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 13% 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 2 Feb 2026
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
IBMConcert	Affected >=1.0.0 <=2.1.0	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (2)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:concert:1.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:concert:2.1.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

1. Monitor IBM’s official channels for patches or updates addressing CVE-2025-36253 and apply them promptly once available. 2. Until patches are released, implement compensating controls such as encrypting sensitive data at rest and in transit using strong, salted cryptographic algorithms outside of IBM Concert. 3. Conduct a thorough audit of all data protected by IBM Concert’s hashing mechanisms to identify and prioritize sensitive assets for additional protection. 4. Enhance network security controls to limit exposure of IBM Concert services to trusted networks and restrict access via firewalls and segmentation. 5. Deploy intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics targeting anomalous cryptographic activity or brute-force attempts. 6. Educate security teams on the specifics of this vulnerability to improve monitoring and incident response readiness. 7. Consider implementing multi-factor authentication and strict access controls around IBM Concert environments to reduce risk of unauthorized access. 8. Regularly review and update cryptographic policies to ensure use of salted hashes and modern algorithms in all systems, including third-party software. 9. Engage with IBM support or professional services for guidance on secure configuration and risk mitigation strategies specific to Concert deployments.

Description

IBM Concert 1.0.0 through 2.1.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-36253 is the potential compromise of confidentiality of sensitive information managed or stored by IBM Concert. This could include intellectual property, personal data, or other critical business information. The vulnerability does not affect data integrity or system availability, so operational disruption is unlikely. However, the exposure of sensitive data could lead to regulatory non-compliance under GDPR, resulting in financial penalties and reputational damage. Sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure that use IBM Concert for data management or orchestration are particularly at risk. The medium severity and high attack complexity reduce the likelihood of widespread exploitation, but targeted attacks by skilled adversaries remain a concern. The absence of known exploits suggests that proactive mitigation can prevent exploitation. Organizations may also face challenges in incident response and forensic analysis if sensitive data is decrypted and exfiltrated.

CWE-759Use of a One-Way Hash without a Salt (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product does not also use a salt as part of the input.
Architecture and Design
Use an adaptive hash function that can be configured to change the amount of computational effort needed to compute the hash, such as the number of iterations ("stretching") or the amount of memory required. Some hash functions perform salting automatically.
Architecture and Design
If a technique that requires extra computational effort can not be implemented, then for each password that is processed, generate a new random salt using a strong random number generator with unpredictable seeds. Add the salt to the plaintext password before hashing it. When storing the hash, also store the salt.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
When using industry-approved techniques, use them correctly. Don't cut corners by skipping resource-intensive steps (CWE-325). These steps are often essential for preventing common attacks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7257565 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (2)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Feb 2026, 10:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-759

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats