VulnerabilityPublished 25 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-64647: IBM Concert · Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation

Affects IBM ConcertSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 25 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 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
IBMConcert	Affected >=1.0.0 <=2.2.0	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (2)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:concert:1.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:concert:2.2.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-64647, organizations should first verify the exact versions of IBM Concert deployed and prioritize upgrading to versions beyond 2.2.0 once IBM releases a patch or updated version addressing the cryptographic weakness. In the absence of an official patch, organizations should consider the following specific actions: 1) Conduct a cryptographic audit of IBM Concert configurations to identify and disable weak or deprecated algorithms if configurable. 2) Employ network-level encryption (e.g., VPNs, TLS tunnels) to add an additional layer of protection around IBM Concert communications. 3) Restrict network access to IBM Concert servers to trusted hosts and networks to reduce exposure to remote attackers. 4) Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual decryption attempts or anomalies indicative of cryptographic attacks. 5) Implement data classification and minimize sensitive data exposure within IBM Concert workflows where possible. 6) Engage with IBM support and subscribe to security advisories for timely updates. 7) Consider compensating controls such as data encryption at rest using external tools or hardware security modules (HSMs) to protect sensitive data independently of IBM Concert’s cryptography. These targeted measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on cryptographic configurations, network segmentation, and layered security to reduce the risk until a vendor patch is available.

Description

IBM Concert 1.0.0 through 2.2.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-64647 is the compromise of confidentiality for sensitive information handled by IBM Concert. Attackers exploiting this vulnerability could decrypt data that was assumed to be securely encrypted, leading to unauthorized disclosure of business-critical or personal data. This could result in intellectual property theft, exposure of confidential communications, or leakage of sensitive customer information. Although the vulnerability does not affect data integrity or system availability, the breach of confidentiality alone can have severe legal, regulatory, and reputational consequences for affected organizations. The medium CVSS score reflects that exploitation is not trivial, requiring high attack complexity, but the lack of authentication or user interaction needed lowers the barrier for remote attackers. Organizations relying on IBM Concert in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure are particularly at risk due to the sensitivity of the data processed. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate threat levels but does not eliminate the risk of future exploitation. Overall, the vulnerability could facilitate targeted espionage or data theft campaigns if exploited by skilled adversaries.

CWE-1240Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
Requirements
Require compliance with the strongest-available recommendations from trusted parties, and require that compliance must be kept up-to-date, since recommendations evolve over time. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the architecture/design uses the strongest-available primitives and algorithms from trusted parties. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cryptanalysis (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7267105 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (2)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Mar 2026, 21:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1240

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats