Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-36262

Ibm Planning Analytics Local 2.0.0 – 2.0.106

Published
30 September 2025
Modified
03 October 2025
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 4.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0028 20th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-36262 is a medium-severity Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (CWE-1286) vulnerability in Ibm Planning Analytics Local. Its CVSS base score is 4.9 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 20th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0.0 through 2.0.106 and 2.1.0 through 2.1.13 could allow a malicious privileged user to bypass the UI to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information due to the improper validation of input.

CWE(s)
CWE-1286

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-33005Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2025-36132Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2025-36437Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2025-33004Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2024-31889Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2023-28520Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2025-2896Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2025-25044Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2024-31907Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local
CVE-2024-31908Same product: Ibm Planning Analytics Local

Affected Assets

ibm
planning analytics local
2.0.0 — 2.0.106 · 2.1.0 — 2.1.13

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • AC-3 Access Enforcement
  • AC-6 Least Privilege
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.1.1
  • V1.4.2
  • V2.1.1
  • V2.2.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match
prevent

Directly requires validation of all input to the system, which would block the improper synthetic input used to bypass the UI.

AC-3 Access Enforcement good match
prevent

Enforces access-control policy on every request so that even a privileged user cannot reach sensitive data outside the intended UI paths.

AC-6 Least Privilege partial match
prevent

Restricts the privileges granted to the user account, limiting the scope of data that can be reached even if the UI bypass succeeds.

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
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require syntactic input validation to prevent malformed data handling.

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.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
detects

Security testing in development catches missing or incorrect syntax validation.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation to ensure syntactic correctness.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for validation of input syntax.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of missing syntactic checks.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper syntactic validation of all inputs.

References