VulnerabilityPublished 6 May 2026

CVE-2025-59851: HCL DFXAnalytics · Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component

Affects HCL DFXAnalyticsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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 6 May 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 29 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
HCLDFXAnalytics	Affected =3.1 and below	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official fix is released, users should monitor HCL advisories for updates and consider mitigating risk by reviewing and updating third-party components where possible.

Description

HCL DFXAnalytics is affected by a Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities flaw where the application utilizes unpatched libraries or sub-components, which could allow an attacker to identify and exploit publicly known security vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access or compromise the application.

Impact

The impact is limited to potential unauthorized access or compromise of the application through exploitation of known vulnerabilities in third-party components. The low CVSS score indicates limited confidentiality impact and no integrity or availability impact. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

Summary

CVE-2025-59851 identifies a weakness in HCL DFXAnalytics (version 3.1 and below) stemming from the inclusion of vulnerable third-party libraries or sub-components (CWE-1395). This dependency on unpatched components may enable attackers to leverage publicly known vulnerabilities to compromise the application. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 3.7, reflecting low severity with network attack vector, high attack complexity, no privileges required, and no user interaction needed.

CWE-1395Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A03:2025: Software Supply Chain Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product has a dependency on a third-party component that contains one or more known vulnerabilities.
Requirements · Policy
In some industries such as healthcare or technologies such as the cloud, it might be unclear about who is responsible for applying patches for third-party vulnerabilities: the vendor, the operator/customer, or a separate service.
Requirements
Require a Bill of Materials for all components and sub-components of the product. For software, require a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Integration · Manufacturing
Maintain a Bill of Materials for all components and sub-components of the product. For software, maintain a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). According to, "An SBOM is a formal, machine-readable inventory of software components and dependencies, information about those components, and their hierarchical…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Cheat Sheet Series: Dependency Graph SBOM (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Cheat Sheet Series: Vulnerable Dependency Management (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=KB0130569 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 May 2026, 11:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1395

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats