VulnerabilityPublished 26 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-55268: HCL Aftermarket DPC · Improper Control of Interaction

Affects HCL Aftermarket DPCSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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
HCLAftermarket DPC	Affected =version 1.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-55268, organizations should implement network-level rate limiting and traffic filtering to detect and block excessive request patterns targeting HCL Aftermarket DPC servers. Deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to identify spamming behavior can help prevent resource exhaustion. Monitoring server performance metrics and network traffic for anomalies will enable early detection of potential attacks. Administrators should restrict exposure of the affected service to only trusted networks or VPNs where possible. Since no official patches are available, consider applying virtual patching techniques or disabling non-essential features that could be abused for spamming. Engage with HCL support to obtain updates on forthcoming patches and apply them promptly once released. Additionally, educating users to avoid triggering spamming interactions can reduce exploitation likelihood. Regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on interaction controls are recommended to identify and remediate similar issues proactively.

Description

HCL Aftermarket DPC is affected by Spamming Vulnerability which can allow the actor to excessive spamming can consume server bandwidth and processing resources which may lead to Denial of Service.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-55268 is on the availability of systems running HCL Aftermarket DPC version 1.0.0. An attacker exploiting this vulnerability can cause Denial of Service by flooding the server with excessive requests, consuming bandwidth and processing power. This can disrupt business operations, especially for organizations relying on this product for critical aftermarket services or supply chain management. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly affected, the loss of availability can lead to operational downtime, financial losses, and reputational damage. Organizations with high dependency on this product may face service interruptions, impacting customer satisfaction and potentially violating service-level agreements. The lack of authentication requirements and the ability to exploit remotely increase the risk of widespread attacks if the vulnerability is weaponized. However, the need for user interaction somewhat limits automated exploitation at scale.

CWE-799Improper Control of Interaction Frequency (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly limit the number or frequency of interactions that it has with an actor, such as the number of incoming requests.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.2 (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=KB0129793 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Mar 2026, 13:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-799

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats