Bigfix Service ManagementApplication · Hcltech

CVE-2025-31958

HIGH · 8.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
91/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
HCL BigFix Service Management is susceptible to HTTP Request Smuggling.  HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities arise when websites route HTTP requests through web servers with inconsistent HTTP parsing. HTTP Smuggling exploits inconsistencies in request parsing between front-end and back-end servers, allowing attackers to bypass security controls and perform attacks like cache poisoning or request hijacking.

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 confidence

HCL BigFix Service Management contains an HTTP Request Smuggling vulnerability where inconsistent HTTP parsing between front-end and back-end servers allows attackers to bypass security controls through specially crafted request sequences that exploit parsing differences.

MitigationFix HTTP parsing inconsistencies between front-end and back-end servers by standardizing request parsing configurations, updating proxy/gateway software, and implementing proper request validation at both layers.

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
Bigfix Service ManagementApplication
Affected:= 23.0

CVSS 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
Low
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify HCL BigFix Service Management is installed
    Check if HCL BigFix Service Management is installed on the system by looking for the installation directory, service running, or checking installed programs. Common locations include C:\Program Files\HCL or /opt/hcl on Linux.
    Affected if The software is not present on the system
  2. Confirm the exact version is 23.0
    Check the installed version of HCL BigFix Service Management. This can typically be found in the product's about section, version info in the control panel, or by checking version files in the installation directory. The vulnerability affects only version = 23.0.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 23.0
  3. Identify front-end proxy or gateway configuration
    Examine whether there is a reverse proxy, load balancer, or gateway in front of the BigFix Service Management web server. Check configuration files for IIS, Apache, Nginx, or any other proxy server handling requests to the application.
    Affected if A reverse proxy or gateway is forwarding HTTP requests to the backend application server
  4. Check for inconsistent HTTP parsing
    Test for HTTP Request Smuggling by sending ambiguous HTTP requests with conflicting headers (such as differing Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding headers) to the endpoint and observing how the front-end and back-end servers handle them differently.
    Affected if The front-end and back-end servers interpret the same request differently, allowing request smuggling

You are affected if HCL BigFix Service Management version 23.0 is running with a front-end proxy or gateway that allows inconsistent HTTP parsing between the front-end and back-end servers.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Fix HTTP parsing inconsistencies between front-end and back-end servers by standardizing request parsing configurations, updating proxy/gateway software, and implementing proper request validation at both layers.

Fix this in Bigfix Service Management Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,640
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-31958 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-31958 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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