CVE-2025-36005
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 MQ Operator LTS 2.0.0 through 2.0.29, MQ Operator CD 3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.1.0 through 3.1.3, 3.3.0, 3.4.0, 3.4.1, 3.5.0, 3.5.1, 3.6.0, and MQ Operator SC2 3.2.0 through 3.2.13 Internet Pass-Thru could allow a malicious user to obtain sensitive information from another TLS session connection by the proxy to the same hostname and port due to improper certificate validation.
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 MQ Operator contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability in its Internet Pass-Thru component. This allows a malicious user to potentially obtain sensitive information from another TLS session to the same hostname and port due to the proxy's inadequate TLS certificate validation.
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>= 2.0.0, <= 2.0.29>= 3.2.0, <= 3.2.13>= 3.5.1, <= 3.6.0= 3.3.0= 3.4.0= 3.4.1= 3.5.0= 9.3.0.0= 9.3.0.1= 9.3.0.3= 9.3.0.4= 9.3.0.5= 9.3.0.6= 9.3.0.10= 9.3.0.11= 9.3.0.15= 9.3.0.16= 9.3.0.17= 9.3.0.20CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 IBM MQ Operator versionRun 'oc get deployment ibm-mq-operator -n <namespace> -o jsonpath="{.spec.template.spec.containers[0].image}"' or check the operator deployment in OpenShift/OKD consoleAffected if The version falls within 2.0.0-2.0.29, 3.2.0-3.2.13, 3.3.0, 3.4.0-3.4.1, 3.5.0-3.5.1, or 3.6.0
-
Identify MQ Advanced Container Image versionCheck the QueueManager or MQ pod image: 'kubectl get pod <mq-pod> -n <namespace> -o jsonpath="{.spec.containers[0].image}"'Affected if The image version is 9.3.0.0, 9.3.0.1, 9.3.0.3, 9.3.0.4, 9.3.0.5, 9.3.0.6, 9.3.0.10, 9.3.0.11, 9.3.0.15, 9.3.0.16, 9.3.0.17, or 9.3.0.20
-
Check if Internet Pass-Thru is configuredInspect the MQ QueueManager config for 'internetPassThru' or 'passThru' settings in the IBM MQ CR (CustomResource), or check for any PassThru gateway deployments in the namespaceAffected if Internet Pass-Thru feature is enabled or configured in the MQ deployment
-
Verify TLS certificate validation configurationReview TLS/SSL channel configurations in MQ (using 'runmqsc' or MQ Explorer) to inspect certificate validation settings, particularly for PassThru channelsAffected if Certificate validation is disabled or set to 'none' on PassThru channels
Your environment is affected if you are running any of the listed IBM MQ Operator or Container Image versions AND the Internet Pass-Thru component is enabled and its TLS certificate validation is not properly configured.
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 · scopedUpgrade IBM MQ Operator to a version that includes the fix for this vulnerability. Verify TLS connections are properly validating certificates after the upgrade.
MQ Operator LTS: 2.0.30+ | MQ Operator SC2 (SC): 3.2.14+ | MQ Operator CD: 3.7.0+ | MQ Advanced Container Images: 9.3.0.5+
- 1. Identify the exact IBM MQ Operator version currently deployed in your cluster using: kubectl get deployment ibm-mq-operator -o jsonpath='{.spec.template.spec.containers[0].image}'
- 2. For MQ Operator LTS 2.x users: Upgrade to version 2.0.30 or later
- 3. For MQ Operator SC2 (SC) 3.2.x users: Upgrade to version 3.2.14 or later
- 4. For MQ Operator CD 3.x users (including 3.3.0, 3.4.x, 3.5.x, 3.6.0): Upgrade to version 3.7.0 or later
- 5. For MQ Advanced Container Images 9.3.0.x users: Upgrade to a patched image version (9.3.0.5 or later)
- 6. After upgrading, verify the operator is running: kubectl get pods -l app.kubernetes.io/name=mq-operator
- 7. Recreate any MQ queue manager pods to ensure the updated operator configuration is applied
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36005 — 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-2025-36005 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