VulnerabilityPublished 30 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-36262: IBM Planning Analytics Local · Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input

Affects IBM Planning Analytics LocalSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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 30 Sep 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 Planning Analytics Local	Affected =2.0.0 =2.1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigation measures: 1) Restrict and monitor privileged user access rigorously, employing the principle of least privilege and ensuring that only necessary personnel have elevated permissions within IBM Planning Analytics Local. 2) Implement robust internal auditing and logging to detect anomalous access patterns or attempts to bypass UI controls. 3) Apply network segmentation to isolate systems running IBM Planning Analytics Local, limiting exposure to potentially compromised accounts. 4) Enforce strong authentication mechanisms for privileged accounts, including multi-factor authentication (MFA), to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 5) Regularly review and update internal policies regarding privileged access and data handling within financial planning tools. 6) Stay alert for IBM security advisories and apply patches promptly once available, as no patches are currently published. 7) Conduct security awareness training focused on insider threat risks and secure handling of privileged credentials. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling and monitoring privileged access and preparing for patch deployment.

Description

IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0.0 through 2.0.106 and 2.1.0 through 2.1.13 could allow a malicious privileged user to bypass the UI to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information due to the improper validation of input.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk to the confidentiality of sensitive financial and planning data managed within IBM Planning Analytics Local. Organizations relying on this software for critical financial planning, budgeting, and analytics could face unauthorized data disclosure if a malicious privileged user exploits this flaw. Given that the vulnerability requires privileged access, the threat is more relevant in environments where internal threat actors or compromised privileged accounts exist. The exposure of sensitive financial data could lead to regulatory compliance issues under GDPR, reputational damage, and potential financial losses. Additionally, unauthorized data access could facilitate further attacks or insider threats. Since IBM Planning Analytics Local is used by enterprises for strategic planning, the confidentiality breach could undermine business decision-making processes and competitive positioning. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the presence of this vulnerability necessitates proactive mitigation to prevent future exploitation.

CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7246602 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Sep 2025, 20:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats