CVE-2025-14811
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 Sterling Partner Engagement Manager 6.2.3.0 through 6.2.3.5 and 6.2.4.0 through 6.2.4.2 could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information from the query string of an HTTP GET method to process a request which could be obtained using man in the middle techniques.
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 Sterling Partner Engagement Manager versions 6.2.3.0-6.2.3.5 and 6.2.4.0-6.2.4.2 transmits sensitive information within HTTP GET request query strings, which can be intercepted by an attacker performing man-in-the-middle attacks. This indicates sensitive data (such as credentials, tokens, or identifiers) is being exposed in URLs rather than being sent via more secure methods like POST request bodies or headers.
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>= 6.2.3, < 6.2.3.6>= 6.2.4, < 6.2.4.3CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 versionLocate and inspect the version file or system information for IBM Sterling Partner Engagement Manager (commonly found in installation directories, about pages, or system configuration files)Affected if The version is 6.2.3.0 through 6.2.3.5, or 6.2.4.0 through 6.2.4.2 (versions below 6.2.3.6 or 6.2.4.3)
-
Review application logs for sensitive data in URLsSearch application logs, access logs, or audit logs for patterns showing credentials, tokens, or session identifiers appearing in HTTP GET request URL query parametersAffected if Logs contain sensitive values like passwords, tokens, or authentication identifiers in URL query strings (e.g., ?password=xxx or ?token=xxx)
-
Inspect network traffic or proxy logsExamine HTTP traffic captures, proxy logs, or API gateway logs for outgoing requests from the application; look for GET requests containing sensitive data in the URL query stringAffected if Network captures show sensitive data being transmitted via GET request query parameters rather than POST request bodies or headers
-
Audit authentication and API endpointsReview endpoint configurations or API documentation to identify which authentication-related endpoints use HTTP GET methods and transmit credentials or tokens as URL parametersAffected if Authentication or API endpoints are configured to accept sensitive data via GET query parameters
You are affected if the installed version is 6.2.3.0-6.2.3.5 or 6.2.4.0-6.2.4.2 AND sensitive authentication data (credentials, tokens, identifiers) is being transmitted in HTTP GET request query strings rather than via POST bodies or headers.
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.
dbcve · scoped6.2.3.66.2.4.3
Migrate sensitive data transmission from query parameters to request bodies using POST methods, ensure all communication occurs over TLS/HTTPS, and audit for additional endpoints exposing sensitive data in URLs.
IBM Sterling Partner Engagement Manager 6.2.3.6 or 6.2.4.3
- 1. Identify the currently installed version of IBM Sterling Partner Engagement Manager by checking the product version in the administration console or system information.
- 2. If running version 6.2.3.0 through 6.2.3.5, plan an upgrade to version 6.2.3.6.
- 3. If running version 6.2.4.0 through 6.2.4.2, plan an upgrade to version 6.2.4.3.
- 4. Review IBM's upgrade documentation and release notes for the target version before initiating the upgrade.
- 5. Schedule a maintenance window and perform a full backup of the current installation and database.
- 6. Execute the upgrade following IBM's standard upgrade procedures for Sterling Partner Engagement Manager.
- 7. After upgrade, verify the new version is correctly installed and the application functions normally.
- 8. Test that sensitive information is no longer exposed in HTTP GET query strings by reviewing application behavior and network traffic.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-14811 — 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-2025-14811 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