CVE-2022-22361
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 · uneditedIBM Business Automation Workflow traditional 21.0.1 through 21.0.3, 20.0.0.1 through 20.0.0.2, 19.0.0.1 through 19.0.0.3, 18.0.0.0 through 18.0.0.1, IBM Business Automation Workflow containers V21.0.1 - V21.0.3 20.0.0.1 through 20.0.0.2, IBM Business Process Manager 8.6.0.0 through 8.6.0.201803, and 8.5.0.0 through 8.5.0.201706 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts.
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 analysisThe application can't tell whether a state-changing request was genuinely intended by the user, so an attacker can trick a logged-in victim's browser into making it. That can transfer funds, change settings, or create accounts silently. Remediation is anti-CSRF tokens — or equivalent same-site protections — on every state-changing request.
General guidance for the cross-site request forgery (csrf) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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>= 19.0.0.1, <= 19.0.0.3>= 21.0.1, <= 21.0.3= 18.0.0.0= 18.0.0.1= 20.0.0.1= 20.0.0.2>= 8.5.0.0, <= 8.5.0.201706>= 8.6.0.0, <= 8.6.0.201803CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 · scopedIBM Business Automation Workflow 21.0.3.1 or later; IBM Business Process Manager 8.6.0.201803 with security fix or later (consult vendor page for specific fixed iFix)
- 1. Review the IBM Security Bulletin for CVE-2022-22361 at the vendor support page for patch availability: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6590411
- 2. Identify your current installed version of IBM Business Automation Workflow or Business Process Manager
- 3. Download and apply the appropriate IBM interim fix (iFix) or upgrade to a fixed version as specified in the security bulletin
- 4. Test the fix in a non-production environment before deploying to production
- 5. After applying the fix, verify that CSRF protection is functioning correctly
- 6. Deploy the validated fix to production environment
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22361 — 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-2022-22361 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