CVE-2025-55117VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-55117: BMC Control-M/Agent · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Affects BMC Control-M/AgentSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 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 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
BMC Control-M/Agent	Affected =9.0.22.000 =9.0.21 =9.0.20 =9.0.19 =9.0.18	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their Control-M/Agent configurations to identify if the vulnerable versions (9.0.18 through 9.0.22) are in use and whether the non-default SSL/TLS settings "use_openssl=n" and "JAVA_AR=N" are applied. If these settings are in place, organizations should revert to default SSL/TLS configurations where feasible, particularly enabling OpenSSL usage (i.e., set "use_openssl=y") to mitigate the vulnerability. Network segmentation and strict access controls should be enforced to limit exposure of Control-M/Agent interfaces to trusted internal networks only. Employing intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics targeting anomalous Control-M/Agent traffic can help detect exploitation attempts. Organizations should monitor vendor communications closely for official patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and plan for rapid deployment once available. Additionally, implementing robust logging and alerting on Control-M/Agent error messages and unusual activity can provide early warning signs of exploitation attempts. Finally, conducting penetration testing and vulnerability assessments focused on Control-M/Agent configurations can help validate the effectiveness of mitigations.

Description

A stack-based buffer overflow can be remotely triggered when formatting an error message in the Control-M/Agent when SSL/TLS communication is configured. The issue occurs in the following cases: * Control-M/Agent 9.0.20: SSL/TLS configuration is set to the non-default setting "use_openssl=n"; * Control-M/Agent 9.0.21 and 9.0.22: Agent router configuration uses the non-default settings "JAVA_AR=N" and "use_openssl=n".

Impact

For European organizations, the exploitation of CVE-2025-55117 could lead to unauthorized remote code execution or system compromise within critical workload automation environments. This can disrupt business operations, lead to data breaches, or allow attackers to pivot within internal networks. Given that Control-M/Agent is often integrated into enterprise IT infrastructure for scheduling and managing batch jobs, a successful attack could impact operational continuity, data integrity, and confidentiality of sensitive business information. The vulnerability's remote exploitability without authentication increases the risk profile, especially for organizations exposing Control-M/Agent interfaces to less trusted networks or the internet. Additionally, the specific configuration conditions required to trigger the vulnerability mean that organizations using non-default SSL/TLS settings are at higher risk, which may include those customizing security parameters for compliance or performance reasons. The lack of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive defense, but also indicates that attackers may develop exploits in the near future, increasing urgency for mitigation.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Sep 2025, 12:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats