CVE-2022-22148
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 · unedited'Root Service' service implemented in the following Yokogawa Electric products creates some named pipe with improper ACL configuration. CENTUM CS 3000 versions from R3.08.10 to R3.09.00, CENTUM VP versions from R4.01.00 to R4.03.00, from R5.01.00 to R5.04.20, and from R6.01.00 to R6.08.00, Exaopc versions from R3.72.00 to R3.79.00.
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 confidenceThe 'Root Service' in Yokogawa CENTUM CS 3000, CENTUM VP, and Exaopc creates named pipes with improper ACL (Access Control List) configuration. This local vulnerability allows unprivileged users to potentially manipulate the named pipe and escalate privileges to execute code with higher permissions.
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>= r3.08.10, <= r3.09.00>= r3.08.10, <= r3.09.00>= r4.01.00, <= r4.03.00>= r5.01.00, <= r5.04.20>= r6.01.00, < r6.09.00>= r4.01.00, <= r4.03.00>= r5.01.00, <= r5.04.20>= r6.01.00, < r6.09.00>= r3.72.00, < r3.80.00CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Yokogawa product and versionCheck the Windows system for Yokogawa CENTUM CS 3000, CENTUM VP, or Exaopc installation directories and locate version information files (typically in the install base directory or registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Yokogawa).Affected if The installed product is one of CENTUM CS 3000, CENTUM VP, or Exaopc and the version falls within the affected ranges provided.
-
Locate the Root ServiceOpen Windows Services console (services.msc) and look for a service named 'Root Service', 'Yokogawa Root Service', or similar naming convention used by Yokogawa for the core service.Affected if The Root Service exists and is running on the system.
-
Verify named pipe creation by Root ServiceUse a tool like 'pipelist' from Sysinternals or run 'Get-ChildItem \\.\pipe\' in PowerShell to enumerate named pipes. Look for pipes created by the Root Service process (identify via Process ID from the service).Affected if Named pipes created by the Root Service are present on the system.
-
Inspect ACL on Root Service named pipesUse Sysinternals 'accesschk' or Windowsicacls command on the identified named pipes to examine the Access Control List. Check if unprivileged users have Write or Full Control permissions.Affected if The named pipe ACL grants Write or Full Control permissions to non-privileged users (such as 'Users' or 'Authenticated Users' group).
A system is affected if it runs any affected Yokogawa product version with the Root Service active and has named pipes with overly permissive ACLs allowing unprivileged access.
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 · scopedApply vendor-provided patches for affected versions; if no patch available, implement strict access controls on the named pipe and restrict interactive logon rights for low-privilege accounts.
Centum CS 3000: R3.09.10 or later | Centum VP: R6.09.00 or later | Exaopc: R3.80.00 or later
- 1. Identify the specific Yokogawa product and current firmware version from the affected version ranges provided.
- 2. For Centum CS 3000 and Centum CS 3000 Entry: Upgrade to firmware version R3.09.10 or later.
- 3. For Centum VP and Centum VP Entry: Upgrade to firmware version R6.09.00 or later.
- 4. For Exaopc: Upgrade to version R3.80.00 or later.
- 5. Contact Yokogawa official support渠道 (web-material3.yokogawa.com or direct support) to obtain the official firmware updates.
- 6. Follow Yokogawa's standard firmware update procedure, ensuring proper backup of configurations before applying the upgrade.
- 7. After upgrading, verify that the 'Root Service' named pipes are created with proper ACL configuration.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22148 — 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-2022-22148 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