CVE-2022-21146
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 · uneditedPersistent cross-site scripting in the web interface of ipDIO allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to introduce arbitrary JavaScript by injecting an XSS payload into a specific parameter. The XSS payload will be executed when a legitimate user attempts to review history.
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 confidencePersistent cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in ipDIO web interface allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to inject arbitrary JavaScript into a specific parameter. The malicious payload is stored and executes when legitimate users access the history review function.
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= 3.9CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 ipDIO web interface exposureCheck if the ipDIO device web interface is accessible on the network by attempting to access the default HTTP port (typically 80/443) or the configured management interface IPAffected if The web interface is reachable from network locations where untrusted users could access it
-
Confirm ipDIO firmware versionLog into the device administrative interface or check the firmware version through the device's status/system information page, or use SNMP/CLI commands if available to retrieve the firmware version stringAffected if The firmware version is exactly 3.9 (Ipcomm Ipdio Firmware = 3.9)
-
Verify history review feature is enabledAccess the history review function within the ipDIO web interface (typically found in logging, audit, or history menus) and confirm the feature is active and accessible to usersAffected if The history review function is enabled and accessible to users who would view the stored data
-
Inspect parameter handling in history featureIf you have access to backend configuration or can review stored history data, examine how user-supplied input is stored and rendered in the history review function - look for lack of input validation or output encoding in the parameter that stores history entriesAffected if User-supplied input in the history feature is stored without sanitization and rendered without encoding when viewed
You are affected if you are running Ipcomm Ipdio Firmware version 3.9 with the web interface exposed and the history review feature enabled, as the stored XSS payload would execute when users access that function.
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.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation and proper output encoding on all user-supplied parameters in the history feature; consider adding Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS execution.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-21146 — 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-2022-21146 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