CVE-2022-21826
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 · uneditedPulse Secure version 9.115 and below may be susceptible to client-side http request smuggling, When the application receives a POST request, it ignores the request's Content-Length header and leaves the POST body on the TCP/TLS socket. This body ends up prefixing the next HTTP request sent down that connection, this means when someone loads website attacker may be able to make browser issue a POST to the application, enabling XSS.
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 confidencePulse Secure versions 9.115 and below contain a client-side HTTP request smuggling vulnerability. When processing POST requests, the application ignores the Content-Length header and leaves the POST body data on the TCP/TLS socket. This residual body then prefixes the next HTTP request sent over that connection, allowing attackers to inject malicious content and potentially achieve XSS via browser-based attacks.
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= 9.1< 9.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 the installed product nameAccess the admin interface or CLI and confirm the product is either Pulse Connect Secure or Ivanti Connect Secure. In the admin dashboard, check the system information or use the CLI command 'show system information' or 'get system version' to display the product name.Affected if The product is Pulse Connect Secure or Ivanti Connect Secure
-
Determine the installed version numberIn the admin interface, navigate to System > Status or use the CLI command 'show version' to display the exact firmware/software version number.Affected if The displayed version is 9.115 or lower for Pulse Connect Secure, or exactly 9.1 for Ivanti Connect Secure
-
Confirm the web service is runningCheck if the HTTPS admin interface or web portal is accessible by attempting to reach the device's IP or hostname over ports 443 or 8443. Use a network scanner or verify the service status via CLI with 'show web-server status' if available.Affected if The web service is running and accepting HTTP/HTTPS connections on the affected product versions
-
Check for active HTTP processingReview the device configuration to confirm HTTP or HTTPS processing is enabled for the admin interface or user portal. In the CLI, use 'show web' or 'show http-server configuration' to inspect enabled protocols.Affected if HTTP/HTTPS processing is enabled on the vulnerable version
You are affected if the product is Pulse Connect Secure version 9.115 or lower, or Ivanti Connect Secure version 9.1, and the web interface is actively processing HTTP requests.
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 · scoped9.1
Upgrade Pulse Secure to a version above 9.115; alternatively, implement WAF rules or HTTP desync mitigation controls to detect and block malformed Content-Length requests, and ensure proper connection handling configurations.
Latest Pulse Connect Secure 9.x release (version > 9.115)
- Check current Pulse Connect Secure version in admin console under System > Status
- Download the latest Pulse Connect Secure software from kb.pulsesecure.net or the official support portal
- Review upgrade instructions in the Pulse Connect Secure Admin Guide
- Schedule a maintenance window and backup current configuration
- Deploy the upgrade in a staging environment first if possible
- Apply the upgrade to production following standard Pulse Secure upgrade procedures
- Verify the upgrade was successful and the vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-21826 — 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-2022-21826 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