CVE-2022-22399
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 Aspera Faspex 5.0.0 and 5.0.1 is vulnerable to HTTP header injection, caused by improper validation of input by the HOST headers. This could allow an attacker to conduct various attacks against the vulnerable system, including cross-site scripting, cache poisoning or session hijacking. IBM X-Force ID: 222562.
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 · high confidenceIBM Aspera Faspex 5.0.0 and 5.0.1 contains an HTTP Host header injection vulnerability due to improper validation of Host header input. An attacker could manipulate the Host header to inject malicious content, potentially enabling cross-site scripting, cache poisoning, or session hijacking attacks against users of the application.
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= 5.0.0= 5.0.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Verify IBM Aspera Faspex is installedCheck for the installation directory (typically /opt/aspera/faspex on Linux or C:\Program Files\IBM\Aspera\Faspex on Windows), or look for the faspex service running on the system using 'ps aux | grep faspex' on Linux or Get-Service on Windows.Affected if The product is not installed on the system.
-
Determine the installed versionAccess the web UI and navigate to Help > About, or check the version file in the installation directory (look for a version file in /opt/aspera/faspex/shared/config or the equivalent Windows path). The CLI command 'faspex --version' may also display the version.Affected if The installed version is 5.0.0 or 5.0.1.
-
Confirm the web interface is accessibleAttempt to reach the Faspex web URL (typically https://hostname/faspex) from a browser or using curl -I to check HTTP response headers.Affected if The web interface responds to requests, making Host header manipulation possible.
-
Inspect web server configuration for Host header validationCheck the nginx or Apache configuration files in the installation (look in /opt/aspera/faspex/shared/config/nginx or similar paths for any proxy or web server config). Look for directives that validate or whitelist the Host header such as 'valid_refers', 'server_name', or custom header validation rules.Affected if No Host header validation rules are configured in the web server.
-
Check for WAF or reverse proxy header validationIf a reverse proxy or WAF sits in front of Faspex, review its configuration for Host header filtering or whitelist rules. Check the main nginx.conf or Apache httpd.conf if these handle the Faspex endpoint.Affected if No WAF or reverse proxy is present, or no Host header validation is configured at that layer.
A user is affected if IBM Aspera Faspex version 5.0.0 or 5.0.1 is installed and the web interface is accessible without any Host header validation at the application, web server, or WAF layer.
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 the vendor patch when available. In the interim, configure web server or WAF rules to validate and reject unexpected Host header values, and ensure the application performs strict whitelist-based validation on all Host header inputs before processing.
Aspera Faspex 5.0.2 or later stable release
- Identify the current IBM Aspera Faspex version running in your environment
- Review IBM's official support portal or security bulletin for the specific fixed version addressing CVE-2022-22399
- Download the appropriate maintenance release or update that includes the fix for the HTTP header injection vulnerability
- Test the update in a non-production environment before deploying
- Apply the update following IBM's standard upgrade procedures for Aspera Faspex
- Verify the fix by confirming the HOST header is properly validated and the vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22399 — 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-2022-22399 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