CVE-2025-31958
Hcltech Bigfix Service Management 23.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-31958 is a low-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Hcltech Bigfix Service Management. Its CVSS base score is 3.7 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 8th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-31958 is an HTTP Request Smuggling vulnerability (CWE-444) affecting HCL BigFix Service Management. This issue stems from inconsistencies in HTTP request parsing when websites route requests through front-end and back-end web servers, enabling exploitation of parsing discrepancies.
Remote attackers require no privileges or user interaction to target systems over the network, though exploitation demands high attack complexity. Successful attacks allow bypassing security controls, with potential outcomes including cache poisoning or request hijacking, leading to low confidentiality impact as reflected in the CVSS v3.1 base score of 3.7 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N).
The HCL Software advisory provides details on mitigation at https://support.hcl-software.com/csm?id=kb_article&sysparm_article=KB0124209.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-209541
Vulnerability Data
HCL BigFix Service Management is susceptible to HTTP Request Smuggling. HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities arise when websites route HTTP requests through web servers with inconsistent HTTP parsing. HTTP Smuggling exploits inconsistencies in request parsing between front-end and back-end servers, allowing…
more
attackers to bypass security controls and perform attacks like cache poisoning or request hijacking.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.1.3V4.2.4V1.5.3V4.1.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Boundary protection at external interfaces can enforce consistent HTTP request/response parsing rules between intermediaries and endpoints.
Validating HTTP inputs at the intermediary prevents malformed messages from being interpreted inconsistently downstream.
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.
Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.
Network monitoring can detect smuggling attempts via anomalous HTTP traffic or logs, while eliminating the inconsistency directly aids detection of such events.
Network protections can enforce consistent HTTP proxy/firewall behavior to block smuggling, and removing the weakness helps prevent unauthorized access via request smuggling.
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.
Security testing can detect HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities in intermediary components.
Network security controls can enforce consistent HTTP parsing and proxy behavior that mitigates request smuggling.
Secure network services include hardening proxies and gateways against inconsistent HTTP interpretation.
Secure SDLC practices require threat modeling and testing for HTTP parsing inconsistencies in intermediaries.
Application security requirements can mandate strict HTTP message validation and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles include consistent protocol handling and defense-in-depth for proxies.