dbcve.org
Sweet BApplication · Westerndigital

CVE-2022-23001

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2022-07-29
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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
When compressing or decompressing elliptic curve points using the Sweet B library, an incorrect choice of sign bit is used. An attacker with user level privileges and no other user's assistance can exploit this vulnerability with only knowledge of the public key and the library. The resulting output may cause an error when used in other operations; for instance, verification of a valid signature under a decompressed public key may fail. This may be leveraged by an attacker to cause an error scenario in applications which use the library, resulting in a limited denial of service for an individual user. The scope of impact cannot extend to other components.

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 confidence

The Sweet B library uses an incorrect sign bit when compressing or decompressing elliptic curve points. This causes decompressed public keys to fail signature verification, leading to denial of service for users who rely on the library's EC operations.

MitigationUsers of the Sweet B library should update to a patched version once available. Application developers should verify their signature verification flows handle this edge case and plan for library updates.

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
Sweet BApplication
Affected:= 1

CVSS 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
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate Sweet B library in your environment
    Search for files named 'libsweetb*', 'sweetb*', or check package manifests (Cargo.toml, package.json, etc.) for 'sweet-b' or 'sweetb' dependencies
    Affected if The Sweet B library is present in your codebase or runtime environment
  2. Identify installed Sweet B version
    Run 'cargo list | grep sweet', check your lock file, or query the library directly via API: sweetb::VERSION or similar version constant
    Affected if The installed version is 1.x (any version in the 1.x line)
  3. Verify EC point operations are in use
    Search codebase for calls to functions like point_compress, point_decompress, public_key_from_bytes, or other EC point serialization/deserialization functions provided by Sweet B
    Affected if Your application performs EC point compression or decompression using Sweet B
  4. Review signature verification flows
    Check application logs for signature verification failures, particularly with decompressed EC public keys. Look for error messages indicating 'invalid signature' or 'verification failed' during EC operations
    Affected if Signature verification failures occur with EC keys processed through Sweet B's decompression functions

You are affected if the Sweet B library version 1.x is in use and your application performs EC point compression or decompression operations, which may manifest as unexpected signature verification failures.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Users of the Sweet B library should update to a patched version once available. Application developers should verify their signature verification flows handle this edge case and plan for library updates.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

Latest Sweet B release post-version 1.x (check Western Digital for specific version number)

  1. 1. Identify the current Sweet B library version in use by checking project dependencies or library files
  2. 2. Navigate to the Western Digital official support or download page for Sweet B
  3. 3. Locate and download the latest stable release of Sweet B that addresses the sign bit compression/decompression vulnerability (CVE-2022-23001)
  4. 4. Replace the existing Sweet B library files with the updated version
  5. 5. Rebuild and recompile any applications that link against the Sweet B library
  6. 6. Test that elliptic curve operations (compression, decompression, signature verification) function correctly with the updated library
  7. 7. Verify that existing public keys and signatures work properly after the update
Caveat Minimal - this is a bug fix for incorrect calculation; however, verify that any stored compressed/decompressed points are re-validated if cached

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Sweet B Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,480
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,568.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-23001 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-23001 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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