Security Bulletin
Summary
IBM Storage Protect Plus File Systems Agent Backup and Restore can be affected by vulnerabilities in Jinja & cryptography which includes execution of untrusted templates, man-in-middle attacks & a denial of service, as described by the CVEs in the "Vulnerability Details" section. These vulnerabilities have been addressed. CVE-2025-27516, CVE-2024-56326, CVE-2024-56201,CVE-2024-6119, CVE-2024-12797
Vulnerability Details
CVEID: CVE-2025-27516
DESCRIPTION: Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.
CWE: CWE-1336: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
CVSS Source: security-advisories@github.com
CVSS Base score: 5.4
CVSS Vector: (CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X)
CVEID: CVE-2024-56326
DESCRIPTION: Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Prior to 3.1.5, An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.5.
CWE: CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure
CVSS Source: CISA ADP
CVSS Base score: 7.8
CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
CVEID: CVE-2024-56201
DESCRIPTION: Jinja is an extensible templating engine. In versions on the 3.x branch prior to 3.1.5, a bug in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker that controls both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, regardless of if Jinja's sandbox is used. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control both the filename and the contents of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates where the template author can also choose the template filename. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.5.
CWE: CWE-150: Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences
CVSS Source: CISA ADP
CVSS Base score: 8.8
CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
CVEID: CVE-2024-6119
DESCRIPTION: Issue summary: Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS
clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory
address resulting in abnormal termination of the application process.
Impact summary: Abnormal termination of an application can a cause a denial of
service.
Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking
server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address when
comparing the expected name with an `otherName` subject alternative name of an
X.509 certificate. This may result in an exception that terminates the
application program.
Note that basic certificate chain validation (signatures, dates, ...) is not
affected, the denial of service can occur only when the application also
specifies an expected DNS name, Email address or IP address.
TLS servers rarely solicit client certificates, and even when they do, they
generally don't perform a name check against a reference identifier (expected
identity), but rather extract the presented identity after checking the
certificate chain. So TLS servers are generally not affected and the severity
of the issue is Moderate.
The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
CWE: CWE-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')
CVSS Source: NVD
CVSS Base score: 7.5
CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)
CVEID: CVE-2024-12797
DESCRIPTION: Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a
server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because
handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode
is set.
Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be
vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not
detected by clients.
RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue
only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the
server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate
chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to
fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys,
by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER.
Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw
public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those
that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was
introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2.
The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
CWE: CWE-392: Missing Report of Error Condition
CVSS Source: CISA ADP
CVSS Base score: 6.3
CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L)
Affected Products and Versions
| Affected Product(s) | Version(s) |
| IBM Storage Protect Plus File Systems Agent | 10.1.6 - 10.1.17 |
Remediation/Fixes
| Affected Versions | Fixing Level | Platform | Link to Fix |
| 10.1.6 - 10.1.17 | 10.1.17.1 |
Windows | https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7184652 |
Workarounds and Mitigations
None
Get Notified about Future Security Bulletins
References
Acknowledgement
Change History
21 Jun 2025: Initial Publication
*The CVSS Environment Score is customer environment specific and will ultimately impact the Overall CVSS Score. Customers can evaluate the impact of this vulnerability in their environments by accessing the links in the Reference section of this Security Bulletin.
Disclaimer
According to the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is an "industry open standard designed to convey vulnerability severity and help to determine urgency and priority of response." IBM PROVIDES THE CVSS SCORES ""AS IS"" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. CUSTOMERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SECURITY VULNERABILITY. In addition to other efforts to address potential vulnerabilities, IBM periodically updates the record of components contained in our product offerings. As part of that effort, if IBM identifies previously unidentified packages in a product/service inventory, we address relevant vulnerabilities regardless of CVE date. Inclusion of an older CVEID does not demonstrate that the referenced product has been used by IBM since that date, nor that IBM was aware of a vulnerability as of that date. We are making clients aware of relevant vulnerabilities as we become aware of them. "Affected Products and Versions" referenced in IBM Security Bulletins are intended to be only products and versions that are supported by IBM and have not passed their end-of-support or warranty date. Thus, failure to reference unsupported or extended-support products and versions in this Security Bulletin does not constitute a determination by IBM that they are unaffected by the vulnerability. Reference to one or more unsupported versions in this Security Bulletin shall not create an obligation for IBM to provide fixes for any unsupported or extended-support products or versions.
Document Location
Worldwide
Was this topic helpful?
Document Information
Modified date:
21 June 2025
Initial Publish date:
21 June 2025
UID
ibm17237440