CVE-2025-36128
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 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 LTS and 9.3, 9.4 CD is vulnerable to a denial of service, caused by improper enforcement of the timeout on individual read operations. By conducting slowloris-type attacks, a remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause a denial of service.
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 confidenceIBM MQ fails to enforce timeouts on individual read operations, allowing remote attackers to conduct Slowloris-style attacks. Attackers open connections and send partial data incrementally, holding connections open indefinitely and exhausting server resources (connections, threads, memory), resulting in denial of service.
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= 9.1.0.0= 9.2.0.0= 9.3.0= 9.3.0.0= 9.4.0= 9.4.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Verify IBM MQ is installedCheck for IBM MQ installation directories (commonly /opt/mqm on Linux or C:\Program Files\IBM\MQ on Windows), or run the command 'dspmqver' if available, or look for MQ services running on the systemAffected if IBM MQ software is present on the system
-
Determine installed IBM MQ versionRun 'dspmqver -a' or 'dspmqver' to display version information, or check the installation logs or /opt/mqm/version.ini file on LinuxAffected if The displayed version matches any of the affected versions: 9.1.0.0, 9.2.0.0, 9.3.0, 9.3.0.0, 9.4.0, or 9.4.0.0
-
Confirm listener ports are exposedCheck IBM MQ listener configuration by running 'runmqsc -c' and using 'DISPLAY LISTENER(*) ALL' or checking qm.ini / mqs.ini configuration files for listener definitions and port bindingsAffected if Network listeners are configured and accessible from untrusted networks (this makes the Slowloris attack feasible)
-
Verify no application-level read timeouts are configuredReview queue manager configuration (qm.ini) for any ChannelTimeout or HeartbeatInterval settings, and check if any custom channel exit or application-level timeout logic has been implementedAffected if No explicit read timeouts are configured at the application or channel level, leaving connections vulnerable to indefinite hold
-
Check network-level timeout protectionsInspect any load balancer, reverse proxy, or firewall configurations in front of IBM MQ for timeout settings (such as idle-timeout, read-header-timeout, or connection-timeout directives)Affected if No network-level timeout protections are in place to mitigate Slowloris-style attacks
The environment is affected if IBM MQ version 9.1.0.0 through 9.4.0.0 is installed with exposed network listeners and no timeout protections configured at any layer.
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 · scopedImplement connection read timeouts at the application or network level (load balancer/proxy), consider deploying a WAF with Slowloris protection, and apply IBM's patches when available for affected versions 9.1-9.4.
IBM MQ 9.4 LTS (latest fix pack) - the description indicates 9.4 LTS and 9.4 CD are affected but have fixes available
- Check current IBM MQ version using 'dspmqver' command or MQ console
- Review IBM MQ support lifecycle for available fix packs at https://www.ibm.com/support/lifecycle
- Apply the latest IBM MQ 9.4 LTS fix pack (or the appropriate fix pack for your release line) which contains the fix for CVE-2025-36128
- After upgrade, verify the fix is applied by checking the APAR (authorized program analysis report) status for this vulnerability
- Test that slowloris-type attack mitigation is functioning properly in a non-production environment before deploying to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36128 — 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-2025-36128 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