VulnerabilityPublished 7 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-17085: IBM API Connect · Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

Affects IBM API ConnectSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium.

Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (ibm)	CVSS 3.1	4.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 7 Nov 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 6 Nov 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
IBMAPI Connect	Affected >=12.1.0.0 <=12.1.1.2 >=10.0.8.0 <=10.0.8.12	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (4)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:api_connect:12.1.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:api_connect:12.1.1.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:api_connect:10.0.8.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:api_connect:10.0.8.12:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, ensure strict input validation and consistent case handling in access control configurations where possible.

Description

CVE-2026-17085 affects IBM API Connect versions 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2. The vulnerability arises from improper handling of case sensitivity in access restrictions, which allows a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security controls and send unauthorized emails. The flaw does not impact confidentiality or availability but can lead to limited integrity violations. The CVSS score is 4.1, indicating medium severity.

Impact

The vulnerability allows a remote authenticated attacker with high privileges to bypass access restrictions due to inconsistent case sensitivity handling. This can result in unauthorized sending of emails, representing an integrity impact. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability reported. The scope of the vulnerability is changed, indicating that the attack affects resources beyond the initially vulnerable component.

Summary

IBM API Connect versions 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 contain a CWE-178 improper handling of case sensitivity vulnerability. This flaw causes inconsistent application of access restrictions across different case variations of input, enabling a remote authenticated attacker to circumvent these restrictions and send unauthorized emails. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.1 with network attack vector, low attack complexity, high privileges required, no user interaction, and a scope change.

CWE-178Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
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.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (4)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-178

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats