CVE-2025-36020
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 Guardium Data Protection could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to cleartext transmission of sensitive credential information.
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 Guardium Data Protection contains a vulnerability where sensitive credential information is transmitted in cleartext over the network. A remote attacker with network access could intercept these credentials through packet sniffing or man-in-the-middle attacks due to the lack of encryption during transmission.
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= 11.5CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 Guardium versionAccess the Guardium administration console or use the Guardium CLI command to retrieve the product version (e.g., 'guardium_version' or similar). Compare the installed version against the affected range: version 11.5.Affected if The installed version is exactly 11.5 (as listed in the affected versions)
-
Check if TLS/SSL encryption is enforcedReview the Guardium configuration settings for network communication encryption. Look for SSL/TLS configuration options in the administrative interface or configuration files. Verify whether encryption is required for all communications.Affected if TLS/SSL encryption is NOT enabled or enforced for communications within the Guardium deployment
-
Identify cleartext protocol usageInspect the Guardium network configuration and protocol settings. Check which protocols are enabled for API endpoints, web interfaces, and data transmission. Look for HTTP (non-SSL) or other unencrypted protocol configurations.Affected if Cleartext protocols (HTTP, unencrypted APIs) are enabled or allowed for credential transmission
-
Verify network communication securityExamine the Guardium network settings for all endpoints and services that handle credential transmission. Check if HTTPS is required for all credential-bearing communications.Affected if Any endpoint or service handling credentials does not require encrypted (HTTPS/TLS) communication
A user is affected if they are running IBM Guardium Data Protection version 11.5 AND have TLS/SSL encryption disabled or cleartext protocols enabled for credential transmission.
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 dataEnable and enforce TLS/SSL encryption for all communications within the affected Guardium deployment. Ensure all endpoints and APIs require HTTPS and disable any cleartext protocols.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36020 — 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-2025-36020 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