HCL IEM was affected with the Anti Clickjacking XFrame Options Header Missing
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 17/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.24% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. A user must open a link or visit a page. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
HCL IEM was affected with the Anti Clickjacking XFrame Options Header Missing. It may allow attackers to embed the application in malicious pages and induce unauthorized user actions.
- Published
- Jul 21, 2026
- Updated
- Jul 30, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.2% · 15th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-693
Report tools
Action score
17
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 17 / 40 · 4.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.2%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 4.3
- CNA · HCL
- 3.1
- 1.2 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| hcltech | intelliops event management | cpe:2.3:a:hcltech:intelliops_event_management |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- hcltech intelliops event management1.1
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (HCL). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
HCLSoftware IntelliOps Event Management
- 1.1affected
Same product
hcltech: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2025-0249HCL IEM is affected by an improper invalidation of access or JWT token vulnerability23Monitor
- CVE-2025-0251HCL IEM is affected by a concurrent login vulnerability22Monitor
- CVE-2026-56584HCL IEM was affected with the Information disclosure nginx server21Monitor
- CVE-2025-0252HCL IEM is affected by a password in cleartext vulnerability19Monitor
- CVE-2025-0250HCL IEM is affected by an authorization token sent in cookie vulnerability19Monitor
- CVE-2026-56586HCL IEM was affected with X-Content-Type-Options Header Missing16Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- A user must open a link or visit a page.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- low · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-693 · Protection Mechanism FailureCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLsCAPEC-1likelihood: High · High
- Cross Site TracingCAPEC-107likelihood: Medium · Very High
- Directory IndexingCAPEC-127likelihood: High · Medium
- Using Malicious FilesCAPEC-17likelihood: High · Very High
- Encryption Brute ForcingCAPEC-20likelihood: Low · Low
- Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-22likelihood: High · High
- Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another LanguageCAPEC-237likelihood: Low · Very High
- Using Unpublished Interfaces or FunctionalityCAPEC-36likelihood: Medium · High
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.