CVE-2025-2898
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 Maximo Application Suite 9.0 could allow an attacker with some level of access to elevate their privileges due to a security configuration vulnerability in Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) configurations.
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 Maximo Application Suite 9.0 contains a security misconfiguration in its Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) system that allows an authenticated attacker with limited privileges to escalate their permissions to higher-privileged roles. The vulnerability stems from improper RBAC role configuration that permits privilege escalation pathways.
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= 9.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Confirm IBM Maximo Application Suite versionCheck the installed version of IBM Maximo Application Suite through the system administration console or by querying the Maximo installation. Verify the version is exactly 9.0Affected if The installed version is IBM Maximo Application Suite version 9.0
-
Review RBAC role configurationAccess the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) administration module in Maximo Application Suite. Navigate to the role configuration section to view all defined roles and their permissionsAffected if Improperly configured RBAC roles exist that create privilege escalation pathways from lower-privileged to higher-privileged roles
-
Examine role hierarchy assignmentsInspect the role hierarchy to identify any parent-child role relationships. Look for assignments where lower-privileged roles inherit permissions from higher-privileged rolesAffected if Role hierarchies allow lower-privileged users to inherit or assume permissions of higher-privileged roles through role inheritance or assignment chaining
-
Check for custom role definitionsReview any custom-defined roles in the RBAC system to determine if they have been configured with excessive privileges beyond what is required for their intended functionAffected if Custom roles are configured with permissions that exceed the principle of least privilege and create unintended escalation paths
A user is affected if their IBM Maximo Application Suite is version 9.0 AND the RBAC configuration contains role hierarchies or assignments that permit authenticated users with limited privileges to gain access to higher-privileged role functions.
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 dataReview and remediate RBAC role configurations to remove improper privilege escalation paths; implement least-privilege principles and validate role hierarchies to ensure lower-privileged users cannot access higher-privilege functions.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 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 $8,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-2898 — 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-2025-2898 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