Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

BMC FootPrints ITSM 20.20.02 <= 20.24.01.001 VIEWSTATE Deserialization RCE

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2025-71260CWE-502

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
8.7
EPSS
34.4% Top 2%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2026-03-19
BMC FootPrints ITSM versions 20.20.02 through 20.24.01.001 contain a deserialization of untrusted data vulnerability in the ASP.NET servlet's VIEWSTATE handling that allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code. Attackers can… More

BMC FootPrints ITSM versions 20.20.02 through 20.24.01.001 contain a deserialization of untrusted data vulnerability in the ASP.NET servlet's VIEWSTATE handling that allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code. Attackers can supply crafted serialized objects to the VIEWSTATE parameter to achieve remote code execution and fully compromise the application. The following hotfixes remediate the vulnerability: 20.20.02, 20.20.03.002, 20.21.01.001, 20.21.02.002, 20.22.01, 20.22.01.001, 20.23.01, 20.23.01.002, and 20.24.01.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-71260: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
High · 8.7 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Over the internetAny user loginNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.
    None
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
    Low
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2026-03-19
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-07-07
    F5 ships a rule
    BMC FootPrints Pre-Auth Remote Code Execution

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-07-07, 110 days after the CVE was published.

2026-07-07New rule200204073Source
Added: signature 200204073 "BMC FootPrints Pre-Auth Remote Code Execution" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: ASP, ASP.NET. References: CVE-2025-71260.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.