CVE-2025-36397VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-36397: IBM Application Gateway · Basic XSS

Affects IBM Application GatewaySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% 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:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 20 Jan 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
IBMApplication Gateway	Affected >=23.10 <=25.09	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (4)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:application_gateway:23.10:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:application_gateway:23.10.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:application_gateway:25.09:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:application_gateway:25.09.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify if they are running IBM Application Gateway versions 23.10 through 25.09 and plan to upgrade to a patched version once available. In the interim, implement strict input validation and output encoding on all user-supplied data to prevent injection of malicious HTML or scripts. Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict execution of unauthorized scripts in browsers. Limit user privileges to the minimum necessary to reduce the attack surface. Monitor web traffic and logs for unusual activity indicative of attempted HTML injection or XSS attacks. Educate users about the risks of interacting with suspicious links or content, especially in authenticated sessions. Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules tailored to detect and block XSS payloads targeting IBM Application Gateway. Coordinate with IBM support to obtain official patches or workarounds and stay informed about any emerging exploit reports.

Description

IBM Application Gateway 23.10 through 25.09 is vulnerable to HTML injection. A remote attacker could inject malicious HTML code, which when viewed, would be executed in the victim's Web browser within the security context of the hosting site.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk to confidentiality and integrity of data processed through IBM Application Gateway, especially in sectors where sensitive data is handled such as finance, healthcare, and government. Successful exploitation could lead to session hijacking, credential theft, or unauthorized actions performed on behalf of legitimate users. While availability impact is negligible, the reputational damage and potential regulatory consequences under GDPR for data breaches could be significant. Organizations using affected versions may face increased risk of targeted attacks exploiting this vulnerability to gain footholds or escalate privileges within their networks. The requirement for authentication and user interaction reduces the likelihood of widespread automated exploitation but does not eliminate risk from insider threats or phishing campaigns. Given IBM Application Gateway's role in managing web traffic and security policies, this vulnerability could also be leveraged to bypass security controls or inject malicious content into trusted web portals.

CWE-80Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS) (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters such as "<", ">", and "&" that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to a downstream component that processes web pages.
Implementation
Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (allowlist) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be neutralized, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL…
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
Implementation
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Targeting Non-Script Elements (opens in a new tab)
PHP Remote File Inclusion (opens in a new tab)
XSS Through HTTP Query Strings (opens in a new tab)
XSS Through HTTP Headers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7256857 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (4)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Jan 2026, 15:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-80

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats