VulnerabilityPublished 25 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-1015: IBM InfoSphere Information Server · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects IBM InfoSphere Information ServerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 on 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 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
IBMInfoSphere Information Server	Affected >=11.7.0.0 <=11.7.1.6	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (2)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:infosphere_information_server:11.7.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:infosphere_information_server:11.7.1.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Immediately review and restrict user privileges on IBM InfoSphere Information Server to the minimum necessary, ensuring only trusted users have authenticated access.
Implement strict network segmentation to isolate the InfoSphere server from sensitive internal resources, limiting the scope of SSRF exploitation.
Monitor server logs and network traffic for unusual outbound requests originating from the InfoSphere server, which may indicate exploitation attempts.
Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) or internal request filtering to detect and block suspicious SSRF payloads or unauthorized internal requests.
Maintain up-to-date asset inventories and monitor IBM security advisories for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability, applying them promptly once available.
Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on internal service access controls and SSRF vectors.
Educate administrators and users about the risks of SSRF and enforce strong authentication and credential management practices to reduce the likelihood of compromised accounts.
Consider deploying network-level egress filtering to prevent unauthorized outbound requests from the InfoSphere server to internal or external systems.

Description

IBM InfoSphere Information Server 11.7.0.0 through 11.7.1.6 is vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF). This may allow an authenticated attacker to send unauthorized requests from the system, potentially leading to network enumeration or facilitating other attacks.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-1015 is unauthorized internal network access and reconnaissance, which can compromise confidentiality and integrity of internal systems. Attackers exploiting this SSRF can map internal network topology, identify vulnerable services, and potentially leverage this foothold for further attacks such as privilege escalation or data exfiltration. Although availability is not directly affected, the breach of internal network boundaries can lead to severe downstream consequences. Organizations relying on IBM InfoSphere Information Server for critical data integration and processing may face increased risk of internal compromise, especially if attacker credentials are obtained. The requirement for authentication limits exposure but does not eliminate risk, particularly in environments with weak access controls or insider threats. The absence of patches increases the window of vulnerability, necessitating proactive mitigation. Overall, the threat could disrupt enterprise data workflows and expose sensitive business information.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7266740 (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, 21:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats