Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-66485

Ibm Aspera Shares 1.9.9 – 1.11.1

Published
01 April 2026
Modified
03 April 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.4
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0020 10th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-66485 is a medium-severity Improper Neutralization of HTTP Headers for Scripting Syntax (CWE-644) vulnerability in Ibm Aspera Shares. Its CVSS base score is 5.4 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 10th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

IBM Aspera Shares 1.9.9 through 1.11.0 is vulnerable to HTTP header injection, caused by improper validation of input by the HOST headers. This could allow an attacker to conduct various attacks against the vulnerable system, including cross-site scripting, cache poisoning…

more

or session hijacking.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

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.
T1185 Browser Session Hijacking Collection
Adversaries may take advantage of security vulnerabilities and inherent functionality in browser software to change content, modify user-behaviors, and intercept information as part of various browser session hijacking techniques.
Why these techniques?

HTTP header injection in public-facing web app directly enables T1190 exploitation; resulting session hijacking/XSS maps to T1185.

Confidence: HIGH · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-66486Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2025-0162Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2025-66484Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2024-38317Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2025-66483Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2024-56472Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2024-38316Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2024-38318Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2024-56473Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares
CVE-2023-38018Same product: Ibm Aspera Shares

Affected Assets

ibm
aspera shares
1.9.9 — 1.11.1

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
  • SC-7 Boundary Protection
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V4.2.3

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly requires validation and sanitization of all input (including HOST headers) to block header injection attacks such as those described in CWE-644.

prevent

Enforces information flow rules that can restrict or sanitize untrusted header values before they influence responses, cache behavior, or sessions.

prevent

Boundary protection mechanisms (e.g., proxies or WAF rules) can inspect and filter malicious HOST headers at ingress points before they reach the vulnerable application.

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 proper output encoding and header sanitization to prevent scripting injection.

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.

detects

Security testing catches header-injection issues before release, covering most of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents header-injection flaws.

prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for neutralizing untrusted data in HTTP headers.

prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe header-specific controls.

prevents

Secure coding standards require proper escaping or rejection of scripting syntax in HTTP headers.

References