Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-13459

Ibm Aspera Console 3.3.0 – 3.4.9

Published
16 March 2026
Modified
17 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 2.7
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0042 35th percentile
Risk Priority 26 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-13459 is a low-severity Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow (CWE-841) vulnerability in Ibm Aspera Console. Its CVSS base score is 2.7 (Low).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique External Remote Services (T1133); ranked at the 35th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and IA-11 (Re-authentication) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

IBM Aspera Console 3.3.0 through 3.4.8 could allow a privileged user to cause a denial of service due to improper enforcement of behavioral workflow.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1133 External Remote Services Persistence
Adversaries may leverage external-facing remote services to initially access and/or persist within a network.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1657 Financial Theft Impact
Adversaries may steal monetary resources from targets through extortion, social engineering, technical theft, or other methods aimed at their own financial gain at the expense of the availability of these resources for victims.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-27272Same product: Ibm Aspera Console
CVE-2025-13212Same product: Ibm Aspera Console
CVE-2025-13460Same product: Ibm Aspera Console
CVE-2024-41765Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-41767Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-49779Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-54169Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2025-27367Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-35896Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-49780Same product: Linux Linux Kernel

Affected Assets

ibm
aspera console
3.3.0 — 3.4.9

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V7.2.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Access enforcement can require each successive workflow step to present the proper authorization context before proceeding.

Re-authentication requirements can be placed at critical workflow steps to ensure the actor has performed prior behaviors.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
degrades

Secure development practices directly address proper workflow enforcement during design and coding.

PR.AA-05 partial match
prevents

Enforcing authorization policies can include sequence constraints on multi-step actions.

PR.PS-01 partial match
prevents

Hardened configuration baselines can embed required workflow ordering rules.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

Security testing can detect workflow bypasses but does not enforce them at runtime.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle requires explicit workflow enforcement in multi-step processes.

prevents

Application security requirements include sequencing and state-transition rules for critical workflows.

prevents

Secure architecture principles address proper ordering of security-critical operations.

prevents

Secure coding practices can prevent missing workflow checks but do not define the control itself.

mitigates

Change management can require workflow adherence for changes but is not the primary mitigation.

References