CVE-2022-1670
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 · uneditedWhen generating a user invitation code in Octopus Server, the validity of this code can be set for a specific number of users. It was possible to bypass this restriction of validity to create extra user accounts above the initial number of invited users.
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 · moderate confidenceOctopus Server allows administrators to create user invitation codes with a specific limit on how many accounts can be created. The vulnerability allowed bypassing this validity restriction, enabling attackers to create additional user accounts beyond the invited limit by manipulating the invitation code redemption process.
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>= 0.9, < 2021.3.12533>= 2022.1.0, < 2022.1.53CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Identify installed Octopus Server versionNavigate to the Octopus Web UI, click your username in the top-right, select 'About Octopus Deploy', or run: octo version from the server command line. Alternatively, check the Windows Programs and Features list or the installation directory for version information.Affected if The installed version falls within < 2021.3.12533 (for 0.9 through 2021.3.x) OR >= 2022.1.0 and < 2022.1.53 (for 2022.1.x releases).
-
Review active invitation codesIn Octopus Web UI, go to 'Users' > 'Invitations' tab. Examine each invitation code and note the 'Max uses' limit configured for each. Document all active codes with their defined usage limits.Affected if Any invitation codes exist in the system (the vulnerability allows bypassing the max uses limit on these codes).
-
Audit recent user account creationsIn Octopus Web UI, go to 'Users' page. Review the 'Created' timestamp on each user account. Cross-reference the count of created accounts against the max uses limit on active invitation codes, particularly for accounts created in rapid succession or beyond expected limits.Affected if The number of accounts created via an invitation code exceeds the defined 'Max uses' limit for that code, or unexpected accounts exist after the invitation should have been exhausted.
-
Check authentication logs for exploitation indicatorsIn Octopus Web UI, go to 'Configuration' > 'Logs' or use the API endpoint /api/events?topic=UserCreationEvent. Search for patterns: repeated user creation events using the same invitation code, or user creation events occurring after an invitation code's usage limit should have been reached.Affected if Logs show user creation events that exceed the configured invitation code limits or show anomalous patterns of account creation using invitation codes.
A defender is affected if their Octopus Server version is within the vulnerable ranges AND they have used invitation codes with usage limits that could have been bypassed, or if logs show account creations exceeding invitation code limits.
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 · scoped2021.3.125332022.1.53
Apply the vendor-supplied security patch for CVE-2022-1670. Audit existing invitation codes and user accounts for unauthorized access, and review authentication logs for indicators of exploitation.
2021.3.12533 or later (2021.x line); 2022.1.53 or later (2022.x line)
- Backup your Octopus Server database and configuration before upgrading
- Stop the Octopus Server service
- Download Octopus Server version 2021.3.12533 (if on 2021.x line) or version 2022.1.53 (if on 2022.x line) or later from octopus.com/downloads
- Run the installer/upgrade process for the chosen version
- Start the Octopus Server service
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the server version in the UI or via the API
- Test that user invitation codes now properly enforce the specified number of invited users
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,536.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-1670 — 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-2022-1670 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