CVE-2022-21950
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 · uneditedA Improper Access Control vulnerability in the systemd service of cana in openSUSE Backports SLE-15-SP3, openSUSE Backports SLE-15-SP4 allows local users to hijack the UNIX domain socket This issue affects: openSUSE Backports SLE-15-SP3 canna versions prior to canna-3.7p3-bp153.2.3.1. openSUSE Backports SLE-15-SP4 canna versions prior to 3.7p3-bp154.3.3.1. openSUSE Factory was also affected. Instead of fixing the package it was deleted there.
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 confidenceImproper Access Control in canna's systemd service allows local users to hijack the UNIX domain socket due to insufficient permission controls on the socket file. The vulnerability exists because the systemd socket unit likely lacks proper SocketMode or ownership configuration, enabling any local user to connect to or intercept communications intended for the canna service.
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< 3.7p3-bp153.2.3.1< 3.7p3-bp154.3.3.1= 3.7p3CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Check if canna package is installedOn openSUSE, run: rpm -qa | grep -i canna or zypper se cannaAffected if The canna package is installed on the system
-
Verify installed canna versionRun: rpm -q canna or rpm -qi canna to get the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is less than 3.7p3-bp153.2.3.1, less than 3.7p3-bp154.3.3.1, or exactly 3.7p3
-
Locate and inspect the systemd socket unitFind the socket unit with: find /usr/lib/systemd -name '*.socket' 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l canna; then examine its contents for SocketMode= or SocketUser= directivesAffected if The socket unit exists but lacks SocketMode= or SocketUser= configuration, or these settings allow world-readable/writable access
-
Check the actual socket file permissions if presentLocate the socket file typically at /var/run/canna/ or /run/canna/ and check permissions with: ls -la /var/run/canna/*.socket 2>/dev/nullAffected if The socket file exists with permissions allowing access by any local user (e.g., world-readable/writable or owned by a different user than expected)
The environment is affected if canna is installed with a vulnerable version AND the systemd socket unit lacks proper SocketMode or SocketUser configuration, allowing any local user to access the socket.
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 · scoped3.7p3-bp153.2.3.13.7p3-bp154.3.3.1
Since openSUSE Factory deleted the package instead of fixing it, organizations should first determine if canna is still deployed; if required, implement proper socket permissions via systemd SocketMode= and SocketUser= directives, or remove the package if unused.
canna-3.7p3-bp153.2.3.1 (for SLE-15-SP3) or canna-3.7p3-bp154.3.3.1 (for SLE-15-SP4)
- 1. Check the currently installed canna version using: zypper info canna or rpm -qa | grep canna
- 2. Identify the correct openSUSE/SLE version running (SLE-15-SP3 or SLE-15-SP4)
- 3. Update the package repository: zypper refresh
- 4. Upgrade canna to the fixed version using: zypper update canna
- 5. Verify the new version is installed: rpm -qa | grep canna
- 6. Restart the canna service if running: systemctl restart canna
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,592.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-21950 — 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-2022-21950 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