What is the CVSS score of CVE-2025-31958?

CVE-2025-31958 has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 3.7 (Low). CVSS vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N. EPSS exploitation probability: 0.0%.

HCL BigFix Service Management CVE-2025-31958

EUVD-2025-209541 LOW

HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444)

2026-04-21 HCL

GHSA-f8cq-gr3x-x7xf

Authentication Bypass Request Smuggling Bigfix Service Management Sm

3.7

CVSS 3.1 · NVD

Severity by source

NVD PRIMARY

3.7 LOW

AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Primary rating from NVD · only source for this CVE.

CVSS VectorNVD

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector

Network

Attack Complexity

High

Privileges Required

None

User Interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

None

Availability

None

Lifecycle Timeline

Analysis Generated

Apr 21, 2026 - 16:31 vuln.today

EUVD ID Assigned

Apr 21, 2026 - 14:30 euvd

EUVD-2025-209541

Analysis Generated

Apr 21, 2026 - 14:30 vuln.today

CVE Published

Apr 21, 2026 - 13:59 nvd

LOW 3.7

DescriptionCVE.org

HCL BigFix Service Management is susceptible to HTTP Request Smuggling. HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities arise when websites route HTTP requests through web servers with inconsistent HTTP parsing. HTTP Smuggling exploits inconsistencies in request parsing between front-end and back-end servers, allowing attackers to bypass security controls and perform attacks like cache poisoning or request hijacking.

AnalysisAI

HTTP request smuggling in HCL BigFix Service Management allows remote unauthenticated attackers to exploit HTTP parsing inconsistencies between front-end and back-end servers, potentially leading to limited information disclosure through cache poisoning or request hijacking attacks. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 3.7 with low confidentiality impact but no direct availability or integrity impact.

Technical ContextAI

This vulnerability exploits CWE-444 (Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests), which arises when proxies, load balancers, or web servers interpret HTTP request boundaries differently. In BigFix Service Management deployments using multi-tier architectures with front-end and back-end servers, an attacker can craft malicious HTTP requests that are parsed differently by each layer. The discrepancy allows smuggling of hidden requests that bypass security controls. The attack typically targets the Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding headers, where conflicting interpretations lead to request desyncs. BigFix Service Management, an IT service management platform, is affected across versions as indicated by the wildcard CPE notation.

RemediationAI

Users should consult the HCL support article at https://support.hcl-software.com/csm?id=kb_article&sysparm_article=KB0124209 for the specific patched version applicable to their deployment. In the interim, organizations can mitigate HTTP request smuggling by enforcing strict HTTP/1.1 compliance with consistent Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding header handling across front-end and back-end servers. Disable HTTP/1.0 support if possible, use HTTP/2 exclusively where feasible (which prevents most smuggling variants), implement request validation rules in front-end proxies to reject ambiguous requests, and ensure load balancers and application servers have identical HTTP parsing logic. Configure Web Application Firewalls (WAF) to normalize and validate HTTP headers, particularly detecting conflicting Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding headers. Monitor for unusual request patterns and cache poisoning indicators. Network segmentation between tiers can limit the scope of smuggled requests, though this does not eliminate the vulnerability itself.