Bigfix Service ManagementApplication · Hcltech

CVE-2025-31960

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-06
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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 (SM) is vulnerable to information exposure due to improper error handling within its reporting module. It was observed that supplying an invalid or out-of-range value to the consumer_company parameter during a report-viewing request causes the application to trigger an unhandled exception.

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 · high confidence

HCL BigFix Service Management's reporting module improperly handles the consumer_company parameter. When an invalid or out-of-range value is supplied during a report-viewing request, the application throws an unhandled exception that exposes sensitive information to the attacker.

MitigationImplement proper input validation for the consumer_company parameter and add exception handling to return generic error messages instead of revealing stack traces or internal application details.

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
None
Availability
None

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

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

  1. Confirm HCL BigFix Service Management is installed
    Locate the HCL BigFix Service Management installation directory or check installed programs list. Identify the specific version number from the application or installer.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 23.0
  2. Verify the reporting module is accessible
    Locate the reporting module component within the BigFix Service Management application. Confirm it is enabled and accessible to users.
    Affected if The reporting module is present and enabled in the environment
  3. Identify the consumer_company parameter usage
    Review application configuration or request parameters related to the reporting feature. Locate where the consumer_company parameter is utilized in report-viewing requests.
    Affected if The consumer_company parameter is used by the reporting module
  4. Test for information disclosure via invalid parameter values
    Send a report-viewing request with an invalid or out-of-range value for the consumer_company parameter. Observe whether the application returns detailed error messages, stack traces, or internal system information in the response.
    Affected if The application returns stack traces, detailed exception information, or internal configuration details when invalid consumer_company values are supplied
  5. Check application logs for exception details
    Review application and web server logs for entries related to report-viewing requests with invalid consumer_company parameter values. Look for unhandled exceptions or verbose error traces.
    Affected if Logs contain detailed stack traces or sensitive system information from consumer_company parameter requests

The environment is affected if HCL BigFix Service Management version 23.0 is running with the reporting module enabled, and supplying invalid values to the consumer_company parameter exposes stack traces or internal application details.

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

Implement proper input validation for the consumer_company parameter and add exception handling to return generic error messages instead of revealing stack traces or internal application details.

Fix this in Bigfix Service Management Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing10.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,580
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-31960 — 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-2025-31960 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