Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessReach IBM FTM OpenShift endpoint
-
ExploitSupply known hard-coded crypto key
-
ImpactDecrypt protected sensitive data
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures
ASVS 5.0
V11 - Cryptography Key management, no hard-coded keys
|
| Exploitation Conditions | Exploitation requires that the attacker possess the specific hard-coded or predictable cryptographic key embedded in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift (CWE-321) and have network reachability to the affected FTM service. The impact is confined to confidentiality (C:H, I:N, A:N) - disclosure of sensitive information protected by that key - with no integrity or availability effect. Limiting factors: the attacker must first obtain or derive the static key from the product (not described as published), and SSVC marks the issue Automatable: no, indicating exploitation is not trivially scriptable at scale; only the affected 4.0.6.0 line (including interim fixes 1-6 per CPE data) is in scope. |
| Impact | Signals here are mixed and point to a moderate, not urgent, priority. The CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N) describes a remotely reachable, low-complexity, unauthenticated weakness with high confidentiality impact (C:H/I:N/A:N), which on paper looks serious. However, the surrounding exploitation signals strongly temper this: EPSS is 0.26% (17th percentile), CISA SSVC lists Exploitation as 'none' and Automatable as 'no', there is no CISA KEV listing, and no public exploit code is referenced. The one amplifying signal is SSVC Technical Impact: total, consistent with a hard-coded/predictable cryptographic key (CWE-321) potentially undermining confidentiality broadly. Net assessment: this is a real but lower-tier issue - a high-CVSS confidentiality flaw whose real-world exploitation likelihood is currently low and whose affected product (IBM FTM for OpenShift) is narrowly deployed. One caveat to verify: CWE-321 (hard-coded key) flaws often require some positional or configuration knowledge to weaponize, yet the vector asserts PR:N/AC:L; the SSVC 'Automatable: no' finding is consistent with real exploitation needing more than a trivial scripted attack, so treat the PR:N/AC:L combination as the vendor's view and validate against IBM advisory 7288641. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | A remote attacker who knows or derives the hard-coded/predictable cryptographic key used by IBM FTM for OpenShift uses it to decrypt sensitive financial-transaction data in transit or at rest, or to forge/verify protected tokens. Because PR:N/UI:N, no credentials or victim interaction are required once the attacker can reach the service and possesses the static key. No public exploit code is identified at time of analysis, so weaponization would require independent key recovery from the product. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv2 – Oct 08, 2026
Sensitive information disclosure in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Red Hat OpenShift stems from the product's use of a hard-coded or predictable cryptographic key (CWE-321). Per the assessed CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N, 7.5), an unauthenticated remote attacker who obtains that static key can read data the product intended to protect, with no integrity or availability impact. The real gate is acquiring or deriving the embedded key rather than defeating authentication: no public exploit identified at time of analysis, EPSS is only 0.26% (17th percentile), and CISA SSVC records exploitation as none with Automatable set to no, making this a moderate, not urgent, priority.
Earlier versions of this analysis (1)
Hard-coded cryptographic key use in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Red Hat OpenShift can let unauthenticated attackers with adjacent-network access obtain sensitive information protected by the predictable key, but high attack complexity (AC:H) and the AV:A vector mean Internet-wide exploitation is not indicated. The vendor rates this 8.0 HIGH with high confidentiality and integrity impact, while the independent assessment revises the impact to confidentiality-only (C:H/I:N/A:N) and notes that no public exploit has been identified at time of analysis. Consequently, this is a vendor-scored 8.0 HIGH flaw whose real-world priority is materially lower than the headline number suggests, and the score itself is internally tension-filled due to the S:C and high-impact components.
RemediationAI
No vendor-released patch version was identified in the available intelligence, so the IBM advisory at https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7288641 (also surfaced via the NVD entry https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-18154) must be checked for the fixed release or interim fix that introduces key rotation, since the 4.0.6.0 interim fixes 1-6 enumerated in the CPE data are themselves affected. Until a fix is confirmed, the most effective control is reducing the value of the key: wherever FTM configuration permits overriding or replacing the built-in cryptographic key with a deployment-specific secret (for example via OpenShift secrets or an external KMS), do so and rotate it, accepting the operational cost of re-encrypting or re-establishing any data protected under the old key. Complement that by restricting network reachability to the affected FTM services with OpenShift network policies or ingress rules so that even an attacker holding the key cannot reach the endpoints that return protected data - the trade-off is tighter segmentation of legitimate upstream financial transaction traffic, which requires explicit allow-listing. Also treat the container images and Operator bundles as secrets: limit image-pull and registry access and audit who can read them, since key extraction is the practical prerequisite for exploitation; this does not fix the defect but raises the cost of the one step the SSVC assessment flags as non-automatable. Because SSVC rates exploitation as none and no public exploit code is known, emergency action is not warranted, but monitoring for anomalous reads against FTM interfaces is a reasonable low-cost detection while a patched build is pending.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affects your stack
Find out whether the stacks and servers you run are on an affected version.
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
CWE-321 (Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key) means the secret that protects confidentiality is embedded in the shipped product rather than generated per deployment or held in external key management. In a containerized FTM for Red Hat OpenShift deployment, that key would live in the product image, operator bundle, or configuration artifacts, so anyone able to pull the image or access the deployment's files can extract it - no memory-corruption primitive, race condition, or authentication bypass is required, only knowledge of the constant plus network reachability to the affected FTM service. The CPE data identifies the affected component as ibm:financial_transaction_manager, enumerating 4.0.6.0 and its interim fixes 1 through 6 alongside a wildcard CPE for the broader line, which indicates the static key was carried forward through those interim fix levels rather than remediated in them. Consistent with the confidentiality-only assessment, the downstream effect is decryption or exposure of data protected by that key, not tampering or denial of service.
Know when Financial Transaction Manager gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Hard-coded key enables remote unauthenticated decryption of sensitive data (AV:N/PR:N, C:H); no integrity or availability impact (I:N/A:N), matching CWE-321 information disclosure.
Primary rating from Vendor (us).
CVSS VectorNVD
Lifecycle Timeline
2DescriptionNVD
IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to the use of a hard-coded or predictable cryptographic key.
Executive ViewAI
IBM Financial Transaction Manager for Red Hat OpenShift, a platform used to process and settle financial transactions, carries a high-severity confidentiality weakness: a static, embedded cryptographic key protects data that the product is supposed to keep confidential, and any unauthenticated remote party who obtains that key can read it. The information at risk is financially sensitive and typically governed by contractual and regulatory data-protection obligations, so exposure could trigger notification duties, audit scrutiny, and counterparty-trust consequences even though there is no impact on transaction integrity or service availability. Today the practical likelihood is limited - no public exploit identified at time of analysis and a low EPSS score - but the flaw cannot be fixed by configuration alone and the vendor has not yet released a patch, leaving remediation dependent on vendor timelines and interim containment.
No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis. Interim mitigations: restrict network reachability of the product's management and inter-service interfaces to trusted internal sources through segmentation and firewall rules; enforce least-privilege access to the data the product protects; enable and monitor audit logging for anomalous read or bulk-export activity on affected instances; engage IBM support for interim guidance and a remediation timeline; where supported, rotate or override the embedded cryptographic key, and where not supported, document the residual risk and consider additional encryption or isolation around the affected data stores.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.
IBM Financial Transaction Manager for Digital Payments for Multi-Platform 3.1.0 is vulnerable to SQL injection. Rated cr
IBM Financial Transaction Manager for SWIFT Services 3.2.4 is vulnerable to an XML External Entity Injection (XXE) attac
IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Multi-Platform (MP) 3.0.0.0 through 3.0.0.7 is vulnerable to SQL injection.
IBM Financial Transaction Manager for Digital Payments for Multi-Platform 3.0.2, 3.0.4, 3.0.6, and 3.2.0 is vulnerable t
Remote code execution via ESQL command injection affects IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Red Hat OpenShift,
Cleartext transmission of sensitive information in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Red Hat OpenShift exposes
Message forgery in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Red Hat OpenShift lets remote, unauthenticated attackers
In the Message Entry and Repair (MER) facility of IBM Financial Transaction Manager for SWIFT Services 3.2.4 the sending
Hard-coded cryptographic keys and initialization vectors in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Red Hat OpenShif
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the OAC component in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) 2.0 befo
IBM Financial Transaction Manager for ACH Services for Multi-Platform 3.0.2 could allow an authenticated user to obtain
Improper authorization controls in IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for Red Hat OpenShift let an authenticated, l
EUVD-2026-84944
GHSA-9689-mf2h-93vw
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Vulnrichment
Exploit-DB