CVE-2022-22076
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 · uneditedinformation disclosure due to cryptographic issue in Core during RPMB read request.
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 confidenceAn information disclosure vulnerability exists in the Core component due to a cryptographic issue during RPMB (Replay Protected Memory Block) read operations. The flaw allows unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data stored in the secure RPMB partition, likely due to improper cryptographic handling such as weak encryption, improper key management, or insufficient authentication during read operations.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 Qualcomm firmware versionRetrieve the firmware version from the modem or IoT device by accessing the baseband subsystem or using manufacturer-provided diagnostic tools (for example, AT commands on modems, or checking /proc/version or /sys/class/modem on embedded Linux systems). Compare the firmware version against the list of affected chipsets: 315 5G IoT Modem, 9205 LTE Modem, 9206 LTE Modem, 9207 LTE Modem, APQ8017, APQ8037, APQ8064au, AQT1000.Affected if The device runs on any of the listed Qualcomm chipsets with any firmware version.
-
Determine if RPMB storage is in useCheck whether the system or modem utilizes RPMB (Replay Protected Memory Block) for secure storage. On Linux-based systems, this can be done by examining /sys/class/mmc or checking for RPMB device nodes (for example, ls /dev/block/*rpmb*). On modem firmware, consult technical documentation or debug logs for RPMB partition access.Affected if RPMB partition is present and actively used for storing sensitive data such as keys, credentials, or secure identifiers.
-
Inspect RPMB read operation accessibilityReview system configurations, debug interfaces, or diagnostic menus that expose RPMB read functionality. Check whether any application, service, or test interface allows direct RPMB read commands without sufficient authentication. Look for exposed APIs, AT command permissions, or debug logs that may reveal RPMB data access paths.Affected if RPMB read operations are accessible through any interface that lacks proper cryptographic authentication or uses weak access controls.
-
Verify cryptographic handling of RPMB readsIf accessible, examine the cryptographic implementation used during RPMB read operations. This may require access to firmware debug logs, secure boot configurations, or vendor documentation. Look for indicators of weak encryption, improper key derivation, or missing authentication in the data path.Affected if The RPMB read implementation uses weak cryptographic algorithms, improper key management, or lacks authentication validation during read operations.
A defender is affected if their device uses any of the listed Qualcomm firmware variants, the RPMB partition is enabled for secure storage, and RPMB read operations are accessible without proper cryptographic authentication.
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 dataApply vendor-provided firmware updates addressing the cryptographic handling in RPMB read operations. If no update is available, consider isolating affected components and monitoring for unauthorized access to secure storage.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA12.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $16,768.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22076 — 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-2022-22076 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