CVE-2025-14480
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIBM Aspera faspio Gateway 1.3.6 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceIBM Aspera faspio Gateway version 1.3.6 implements weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms, allowing potential attackers to decrypt highly sensitive information transmitted through the gateway.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 1.3.6CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed version of IBM Aspera faspio GatewayRun the appropriate version command or check the product documentation for your installation method (for example: faspio --version, or check the software inventory/system package manager)Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.3.6
-
Locate TLS/SSL configuration files for the gatewayConsult the IBM Aspera faspio Gateway documentation to find the configuration files that control TLS/SSL settings - typically these are in the gateway's config directory or management interfaceAffected if Weak cryptographic algorithms (such as SSLv3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, or weak cipher suites like those using DES, 3DES, or MD5) are enabled or configured
-
Review enabled cipher suitesExamine the TLS/SSL configuration to list all enabled cipher suites - look for the presence of weak or deprecated ciphers (for example: NULL, EXPORT, DES, 3DES, RC4, MD5-based ciphers)Affected if Weak cipher suites are listed as enabled in the configuration
-
Check the TLS protocol version settingsInspect the TLS/SSL configuration for the minimum and maximum supported protocol versionsAffected if TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 are enabled as minimum versions, or SSL protocols are allowed
-
Verify configured cryptographic algorithmsCheck the configuration for any settings related to encryption algorithms, hash functions, or key exchange methods - look for non-FIPS-compliant or deprecated algorithmsAffected if Algorithms weaker than AES-256 or SHA-256 are specified or preferred
The environment is affected if the installed IBM Aspera faspio Gateway version is exactly 1.3.6 AND the TLS/SSL configuration uses weak cryptographic algorithms, deprecated protocols, or weak cipher suites.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataContact IBM for the patched version and ensure TLS/SSL configurations use strong cryptographic algorithms (TLS 1.2+, AES-256, SHA-256) with disabled weak ciphers and protocols.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-14480 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-14480 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data