CVE-2025-55112
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 · uneditedOut-of-support Control-M/Agent versions 9.0.18 to 9.0.20 (and potentially earlier unsupported versions) that are configured to use the non-default Blowfish cryptography algorithm use a hardcoded key. An attacker with access to network traffic and to this key could decrypt network traffic between the Control-M/Agent and Server.
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 confidenceControl-M/Agent versions 9.0.18 through 9.0.20 (and potentially earlier unsupported releases) use a hardcoded Blowfish encryption key when configured for the non-default Blowfish cryptography algorithm. An attacker who can capture network traffic and obtain this key can decrypt the communication between the Control-M/Agent and its Server.
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<= 9.0.20.200CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Identify Control-M/Agent installed versionRun the command to check the Control-M/Agent version. On Linux/Unix: inspect the agent installation directory or run 'ctmversion' or check version files. On Windows: check via registry or version info in the installation folder.Affected if The installed version falls within 9.0.18 through 9.0.20.200 (or is an earlier unsupported release that may also contain the hardcoded key)
-
Locate agent cryptography configurationExamine the Control-M/Agent configuration files or settings where the cryptography algorithm is specified. This is typically found in the agent configuration (ctm_agent.cfg, config file, or via ctmconfigure utility).Affected if You are unable to locate or do not have access to the cryptography configuration settings
-
Verify if Blowfish algorithm is enabledCheck the agent configuration for the cryptType, encryption algorithm, or similar parameter that specifies which cryptography method is in use. Look for settings indicating Blowfish is selected.Affected if The agent is configured to use Blowfish as the cryptography algorithm (this is a non-default setting, so if Blowfish is explicitly configured, the condition is met)
-
Inspect network communication configurationReview the agent-to-server communication settings in the configuration to confirm Blowfish is the active encryption method for network traffic between agent and server.Affected if Blowfish encryption is actively used for agent-server communication
You are affected if your Control-M/Agent version is 9.0.18 through 9.0.20.200 (or an earlier unsupported version) AND the agent is configured to use the Blowfish cryptography algorithm for encrypting communication with its server.
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 to a supported Control-M/Agent version that does not contain the hardcoded key, or reconfigure the agent to use a non-vulnerable cryptographic algorithm. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, ensure network segmentation and monitor for man-in-the-middle attacks.
Current supported Control-M/Agent version (contact BMC Software for latest release)
- 1. Identify all Control-M/Agent installations running versions 9.0.18 through 9.0.20.200
- 2. Verify if these agents are configured to use the Blowfish cryptography algorithm (non-default setting)
- 3. Contact BMC Software support or consult the official documentation to determine the currently supported Control-M/Agent release
- 4. Plan and schedule an upgrade of affected agents to the currently supported version
- 5. After upgrading, verify that the Blowfish configuration is either removed or updated to use proper key management
- 6. Test connectivity between upgraded agents and the Control-M Server
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-55112 — 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-2025-55112 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