Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2022-23123
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability allows remote attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of Netatalk. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the getdirparams method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in a read past the end of an allocated buffer. An attacker can leverage this in conjunction with other vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-15830.
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 confidenceA buffer over-read vulnerability in Netatalk's getdirparams method allows unauthenticated remote attackers to read beyond allocated buffer boundaries, potentially exposing sensitive information. This info disclosure can be chained with other vulnerabilities to achieve root-level arbitrary code execution.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 10.0= 11.0< 3.1.13CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Verify Netatalk package installationRun `dpkg -l netatalk` on Debian systems or `rpm -q netatalk` on RHEL-based systems to check if the Netatalk package is installedAffected if The package is installed and appears in the package list
-
Determine installed Netatalk versionRun `dpkg -l | grep netatalk` or check the output of `netatalk -V` to retrieve the exact version numberAffected if The version number is lower than 3.1.13 (for example, 3.1.12, 3.1.11, etc.)
-
Confirm AFP daemon is runningRun `systemctl status afpd` or `ps aux | grep afpd` to check if the AFP daemon process is activeAffected if The afpd service is running and accepting connections
-
Check for network exposureReview firewall rules and netstat/ss output (`ss -tlnp | grep 548`) to determine if port 548 (AFP port) is exposed to untrusted networksAffected if Port 548 is listening on interfaces accessible from untrusted networks or the internet
You are affected if Netatalk version is below 3.1.13 AND the AFP service is running and accessible to unauthenticated remote attackers on your network.
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 · scoped3.1.13
Update Netatalk to the latest patched version; if immediate patching is not possible, restrict network access to AFP services and monitor for anomalous getdirparams requests.
Netatalk 3.1.13 or later
- Identify the currently installed Netatalk version using package manager (e.g., `dpkg -l | grep netatalk` or `apt show netatalk`)
- Stop the Netatalk service if running (e.g., `systemctl stop netatalk` or `service netatalk stop`)
- Update package lists: `apt update`
- Upgrade Netatalk to version 3.1.13 or later: `apt install netatalk`
- Verify the installed version matches or exceeds 3.1.13: `dpkg -l | grep netatalk`
- Restart the Netatalk service: `systemctl start netatalk` or `service netatalk start`
- If using Debian 10 (buster) or Debian 11 (bullseye), ensure backports or updated repositories are enabled to obtain the fixed version, or consider upgrading to a newer Debian release that includes the patched package
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-23123 — 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-2022-23123 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