CVE-2022-22275
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 · uneditedImproper Restriction of TCP Communication Channel in HTTP/S inbound traffic from WAN to DMZ bypassing security policy until TCP handshake potentially resulting in Denial of Service (DoS) attack if a target host is vulnerable.
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 confidenceThis is a network security device vulnerability affecting HTTP/S inbound traffic from WAN to DMZ. The device fails to properly restrict TCP communication channels until after the TCP handshake completes, allowing malicious traffic to bypass security policies and potentially exhaust target host resources leading to DoS.
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>= 7.0.0.0, <= 7.0.1-5030-r2007>= 7.0.0.0, <= 7.0.1.0-5030-1391>= 7.0.0.0, <= 7.0.1-5030-r780CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 Sonicwall device and Sonicos versionAccess the Sonicwall management interface (GUI or CLI) and navigate to System > Status or use command 'show version' in CLI to retrieve the firmware version string.Affected if The device is a Sonicwall appliance running Sonicos with version 7.0.0.0 through 7.0.1-5030-r2007, 7.0.1.0-5030-1391, or 7.0.1-5030-r780.
-
Confirm WAN zone configurationNavigate to Network > Zones in the Sonicwall GUI or use CLI command 'show zones' to list configured security zones.Affected if A WAN zone is defined and active on the device.
-
Confirm DMZ zone configurationNavigate to Network > Zones in the Sonicwall GUI or use CLI command 'show zones' to list configured security zones. Verify if a DMZ zone exists.Affected if A DMZ zone is defined and active on the device.
-
Check WAN-to-DMZ HTTP/S access rulesNavigate to Firewall > Access Rules in the Sonicwall GUI or use CLI command 'show access-rules' to inspect inbound rules from WAN to DMZ allowing HTTP (port 80) or HTTPS (port 443) traffic.Affected if An access rule exists permitting HTTP or HTTPS traffic from WAN zone to DMZ zone.
The environment is affected if it is a Sonicwall Sonicos device within the specified version ranges with an active WAN zone and an active DMZ zone that has an Allow rule for inbound HTTP/S traffic from WAN.
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/software updates that enforce security policy restrictions before the TCP handshake completes. Implement additional firewall rules or rate limiting as a compensating control if immediate patching is not feasible.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22275 — 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-2022-22275 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