VulnerabilityPublished 26 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-55271: HCL Aftermarket DPC · Improper Control of HTTP Messages and Headers

Affects HCL Aftermarket DPCSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 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-2025-55271, organizations should implement strict input validation and sanitization for all user-supplied data incorporated into HTTP headers, ensuring CR and LF characters are properly encoded or rejected. Web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious header injection attempts. Developers should review and refactor the code handling HTTP responses to avoid concatenating untrusted input directly into headers. Until an official patch from HCL is available, consider deploying reverse proxies or security gateways that normalize HTTP responses and strip out malicious header injections. Security teams should monitor network traffic for anomalies indicative of response splitting attacks and educate users about phishing risks associated with manipulated HTTP responses. Regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on HTTP header injection vectors can help identify residual risks. Finally, maintain close communication with HCL for updates and apply patches promptly once released.

Description

HCL Aftermarket DPC is affected by HTTP Response Splitting vulnerability where in depending on how the web application handles the split response, an attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands or inject harmful content into the response..

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is on confidentiality, where an attacker may inject malicious content into HTTP responses, potentially leading to information disclosure or session hijacking through client-side attacks like XSS. The vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability directly, limiting its destructive potential. However, successful exploitation could undermine user trust and lead to secondary attacks such as phishing or malware distribution. Organizations using HCL Aftermarket DPC in customer-facing or internal web applications may face reputational damage and increased risk of targeted attacks. Since no known exploits exist yet, the immediate risk is low, but the vulnerability could be leveraged in combination with other weaknesses to escalate attacks. The requirement for user interaction and high attack complexity further reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation. Nevertheless, the presence of this vulnerability in a supply chain or aftermarket product could have cascading effects if integrated into larger enterprise systems.

CWE-113Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers (HTTP Request Splitting) (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.
Implementation · Input Validation
Construct HTTP headers very carefully, avoiding the use of non-validated input data.
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. If an input does not strictly conform to specifications, reject it or transform it into something that conforms.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Splitting (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (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-113

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats