CVE-2022-0652
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedConfd log files contain local users', including root’s, SHA512crypt password hashes with insecure access permissions. This allows a local attacker to attempt off-line brute-force attacks against these password hashes in Sophos UTM before version 9.710.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceIn Sophos UTM before version 9.710, the confd log files store local users' SHA512crypt password hashes (including the root account) with insecure file permissions. This allows any local unprivileged user to read these password hashes and perform offline brute-force attacks to recover plaintext passwords.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 9.710CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify the system is Sophos UTMConfirm the installed product is Sophos Unified Threat Management by checking the system hostname, banner, or product documentationAffected if The system is not running Sophos UTM
-
Determine the installed Sophos UTM versionRun 'utversion' or check the system version information to identify the exact version numberAffected if The version is lower than 9.710 (e.g., 9.700, 9.607, etc.)
-
Locate the confd log filesSearch for confd-related log files in common log directories such as /var/log/confd or /var/log/Affected if confd log files exist on the system
-
Check file permissions on confd log filesRun 'ls -la' on the confd log files to inspect their permissions. Look for files readable by non-root users (e.g., permissions showing 'rw-r--r--' or similar world-readable settings)Affected if The confd log files are readable by unprivileged users (e.g., permissions include 'r--' for 'others' or group)
-
Examine password hashes in confd logsIf confd log files are accessible, use 'cat' or 'grep' to search for SHA512crypt password hash patterns (identified by $6$ prefix) within the logsAffected if SHA512crypt password hashes are present and readable in the confd log files
A system is affected if it runs Sophos UTM version below 9.710 AND the confd log files containing SHA512crypt password hashes are readable by unprivileged users.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped9.710
Upgrade Sophos UTM to version 9.710 or later which fixes the insecure file permissions on confd log files. As an interim measure, restrict filesystem access to the confd log directories.
Sophos UTM 9.710 or later
- Upgrade Sophos UTM to version 9.710 or later
- After upgrading, verify that the confd log files no longer contain password hashes or are properly protected with restricted permissions
- Consider rotating local user passwords as a precautionary measure after the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-0652 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-0652 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data