CVE-2022-23004
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 · uneditedWhen computing a shared secret or point multiplication on the NIST P-256 curve using a public key with an X coordinate of zero, an error is returned from the library, and an invalid unreduced value is written to the output buffer. This may be leveraged by an attacker to cause an error scenario, 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 confidenceIn a cryptographic library handling NIST P-256 curve operations, when computing a shared secret or point multiplication using a public key where the X coordinate equals zero, the library returns an error but still writes an invalid unreduced value to the output buffer. This improper error handling can cause denial of service for the individual user.
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= 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
- 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Westerndigital Sweet B library presenceSearch your codebase, dependencies, or installed packages for the Sweet B cryptographic library (look for packages named 'sweet-b', 'sweetb', or similar)Affected if The library is present in the environment
-
Determine Sweet B versionCheck the installed or bundled version of the Sweet B library (typically via package.json, Cargo.toml, requirements.txt, or binary/library metadata)Affected if The version is exactly 1.0 or 1 (the specific version listed as affected)
-
Identify NIST P-256 usage in codeSearch for function calls related to shared secret computation (ecdh, compute_shared_secret) or point multiplication (point_multiply, scalar_multiply) using NIST P-256 curveAffected if Code performs ECDH shared secret computation or point multiplication with P-256 curves using Sweet B
-
Check for error handling around zero X coordinateReview error handling paths in the Sweet B integration code or check library logs for any errors indicating 'x coordinate equals zero' or similar validation failuresAffected if Errors are returned but output buffers may still contain invalid unreduced values (this is the vulnerability behavior)
A user is affected if they have Westerndigital Sweet B version 1 in use and are performing NIST P-256 operations where a public key with X coordinate equal to zero could be processed, causing invalid data to be written despite error returns.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of the affected cryptographic library that properly handles the error condition and prevents writing invalid data to the output buffer when input validation fails.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-23004 — 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-2022-23004 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