CVE-2026-67104
CVE-2026-67104 — HCL BigFix Service Management is affected by multiple security vulnerabilities.
HCL BigFix Service Management is affected by an Information Disclosure vulnerability, which could allow an unauthenticated attacker to analyze publicly accessible JavaScript files, enabling the discovery of hidden administrative API endpoints for further targeted exploitation.
Published Updated Sources: NVD, HCL Software (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Exploit code
public exploit, none observed
EPSS
0%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
5.3
medium
Remediation
The vendor's own words where we have them.
Upgrade HCL BigFix Service Management to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.
- Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
- Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| HCL Software | HCL BigFix Service Management | Version 27 | Vulnerable |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Availability
None
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Scope
Unchanged
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Vector
Network
Privileges Req
None
User Interaction
None
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.3 | CVSS 3.1 | medium | 3.9 | 1.4 | hcl.com (CNA), HCL Software (CNA), GHSA |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
What this weakness leads to
MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.
CWE-798 · Use of Hard-coded Credentials
- Bypass Protection Mechanism
- Read Application Data
- Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
- Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Mitigation: For outbound authentication: store passwords, keys, and other credentials outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320). If you cannot use encryption to protect the file, then make sure that the permissions are as restrictive as possible [REF-7]. In Windows environments, the Encrypted File System (EFS) may provide some protection.
CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- Read Application Data::
Mitigation: Compartmentalize the system to have safe areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.::
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information
- CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials
Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.
- T1562.003Impair Defenses: Impair Command History Logging
- T1574.006Hijack Execution Flow: Dynamic Linker Hijacking
- T1574.007Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Repositories
1
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable HCL BigFix Service Management.
- Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 5.3 (AV:N)
Oct 1, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Oct 1, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-95qm-c6pj-569j published (medium)
Oct 1, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
CVE published by NIST.
Oct 1, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
4 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
- HCL Softwareevery CVE for this vendor
- Info Disclosuresame class
- CWE-200other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-67104 is HCL BigFix Service Management is affected by multiple security vulnerabilities., a medium vulnerability affecting HCL BigFix Service Management from HCL Software. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-67104. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 5.3 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.