CVE-2025-36180
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 watsonx.data 2.2 through 2.3 IBM Lakehouse does not properly restrict communication between pods which could allow an attacker to transfer data between pods without restrictions.
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 watsonx.data versions 2.2 through 2.3 contain a pod network isolation vulnerability where Kubernetes network policies are either missing or improperly configured, allowing unrestricted pod-to-pod communication within the cluster. An attacker who gains access to any pod could laterally move and transfer data to/from other pods without authentication or authorization checks.
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>= 2.2.0, <= 2.3CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed watsonx.data versionRun 'ibm watsonx.data version' or check the operator/operand version in Kubernetes: 'kubectl get operand watsonxdata -n <namespace> -o jsonpath="{.spec.version}"' or 'kubectl get deployment -n <namespace>' and inspect version labelsAffected if Version is 2.2.0 through 2.3.x (any patch in this range)
-
Identify the watsonx.data namespaceRun 'kubectl get namespaces | grep watsonx' or 'kubectl get all -A | grep watsonx' to find the namespace where watsonx.data is deployedAffected if The namespace exists and contains watsonx.data pods (required for further checks)
-
Verify NetworkPolicy resources existRun 'kubectl get networkpolicy -n <watsonx-namespace>' to list all NetworkPolicy objects in the watsonx.data namespaceAffected if No NetworkPolicy resources exist, or the command returns nothing (empty result)
-
Check for default-deny policyRun 'kubectl get networkpolicy default-deny -n <watsonx-namespace>' to see if a default-deny policy is presentAffected if No default-deny NetworkPolicy exists, meaning all pod traffic is allowed by default
-
Inspect NetworkPolicy egress rulesRun 'kubectl get networkpolicy -n <watsonx-namespace> -o yaml' and review each policy's egress section - check if egress is explicitly denied for unlisted destinationsAffected if NetworkPolicies exist but do not restrict egress, or allow unrestricted pod-to-pod communication
If watsonx.data version is 2.2.0-2.3.x AND no comprehensive NetworkPolicies are in place to restrict pod-to-pod communication, the environment is vulnerable to lateral movement.
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 dataImplement Kubernetes NetworkPolicies to explicitly whitelist allowed pod-to-pod communication paths and deny all other traffic by default. Follow zero-trust networking principles within the Kubernetes namespace.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36180 — 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-2025-36180 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