CVE-2025-52615VulnerabilityPublished 12 Oct 2025Updated 16 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-52615: HCL Software Unica Platform · Protection Mechanism Failure

Affects HCL Software Unica PlatformSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% 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:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 12 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 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
HCL Software Unica Platform	Affected <=25.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should conduct a thorough audit of HTTP security headers configured on their Unica Platform deployments. Specific steps include: 1) Implementing a strict Content-Security-Policy (CSP) to control resource loading and mitigate XSS risks; 2) Enabling X-Content-Type-Options with the 'nosniff' directive to prevent MIME-type sniffing; 3) Setting X-Frame-Options to 'DENY' or 'SAMEORIGIN' to protect against clickjacking; 4) Enforcing Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS) to ensure HTTPS usage; 5) Regularly reviewing and updating these headers as part of the platform's web server or application configuration; 6) Testing header effectiveness using tools like securityheaders.com or browser developer tools; 7) Monitoring for unusual client-side behavior or indicators of compromise; 8) Coordinating with HCL Software support for updates or patches when available; 9) Training developers and administrators on secure header configurations; 10) Integrating header checks into continuous security assessments and DevSecOps pipelines. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific HTTP header misconfiguration issue identified in Unica Platform.

Description

HCL Unica Platform is impacted by misconfigured security related HTTP headers. This can lead to less secure browser default treatment for the policies controlled by these headers.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability could lead to reduced browser security when interacting with Unica Platform web interfaces, potentially exposing sensitive customer data to interception or manipulation via client-side attacks. Although the direct impact is low, the confidentiality of marketing and customer engagement data could be compromised if attackers exploit the weakened browser policies. This is particularly relevant for organizations handling personal data under GDPR, where any data leakage could result in regulatory penalties and reputational damage. The vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability, so operational disruptions are unlikely. However, attackers might leverage this weakness as part of a broader attack chain targeting user sessions or injecting malicious scripts. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on digital marketing platforms, such as retail, finance, and telecommunications, may face increased risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat levels but does not eliminate the need for remediation.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

support.hcl-software.com/csm?id=kb_article&sysparm_article=KB0124417 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Oct 2025, 09:00 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats