CVE-2025-55113
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 · uneditedIf the Access Control List is enforced by the Control-M/Agent and the C router is in use (default in Out-of-support Control-M/Agent versions 9.0.18 to 9.0.20 and potentially earlier unsupported versions; non-default but configurable using the JAVA_AR setting in newer versions), the verification stops at the first NULL byte encountered in the email address referenced in the client certificate. An attacker could bypass configured ACLs by using a specially crafted certificate.
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 ACL enforcement has a bypass vulnerability when using the C router. The email address verification in client certificates stops at the first NULL byte, allowing attackers with specially crafted certificates containing NULL bytes in the email field to bypass configured Access Control Lists.
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<= 9.0.22CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Determine Control-M/Agent versionRun 'ctmversion' command or check the agent installation directory for version information files. On Linux/Unix, check /opt/ctm/VERSION or similar. On Windows, check the registry or installation logs.Affected if Installed version is 9.0.22 or lower.
-
Verify C router is enabledCheck the agent configuration for the JAVA_AR parameter. Look in the agent's config file (typically ctmagent.cfg or through ctmconfig) or run: ctmgetconfig AGENT | grep -i JAVA_AR. If JAVA_AR is set and points to a C router path, it is enabled.Affected if JAVA_AR configuration setting exists and points to a C router implementation.
-
Check if certificate-based ACLs are configuredReview the Access Control List configuration for the agent using ctmgetacl or by examining the ACL configuration files. Look for rules that reference client certificate validation or specific email addresses in certificates.Affected if Certificate-based ACLs are configured to restrict access based on email fields in client certificates.
-
Inspect certificate validation behaviorIf using client certificate authentication, examine how email fields are validated. Check if the validation routine properly handles NULL bytes in the certificate subject Alternative Name or email field.Affected if Certificate email field validation does not handle NULL bytes correctly, allowing truncation of the email address during verification.
The environment is affected if the Control-M/Agent version is 9.0.22 or lower, the C router (JAVA_AR) is enabled, and certificate-based ACLs are configured using email field verification.
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 version; for newer versions, disable the C router by removing the JAVA_AR configuration setting, or ensure only trusted certificates are accepted.
Control-M/Agent version 9.0.23 or later (confirm with BMC security advisory)
- 1. Identify the Control-M/Agent version currently deployed by checking the agent installation or using the ctmagent -version command.
- 2. Contact BMC Support or check BMC's official security advisory for CVE-2025-55113 to confirm the specific fixed version number.
- 3. Plan upgrade to Control-M/Agent version 9.0.23 or later (if available) that includes the security fix for the null byte ACL bypass vulnerability.
- 4. Before upgrading, review the Control-M/Agent upgrade documentation and release notes for version 9.0.23 for any prerequisites or migration considerations.
- 5. Backup the current agent configuration, especially ACL-related settings.
- 6. Perform the upgrade following BMC's standard upgrade procedure for Control-M/Agent.
- 7. After upgrade, verify that the C router configuration (JAVA_AR setting if used) is properly secured and ACLs are functioning as expected.
- 8. Test the ACL enforcement with various certificate configurations to confirm the null byte bypass is no longer possible.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-55113 — 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-2025-55113 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