CVE-2022-24633
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 · uneditedAll versions of FileCloud prior to 21.3 are vulnerable to user enumeration. The vulnerability exists in the parameter "path" passing "/SHARED/<username>". A malicious actor could identify the existence of users by requesting share information on specified share paths.
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 confidenceFileCloud versions before 21.3 contain a user enumeration vulnerability where the path parameter accepts /SHARED/<username> and returns different responses (e.g., share exists vs. not found) allowing attackers to confirm valid usernames by observing API behavior.
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< 21.3.0.18447CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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.
-
Check FileCloud versionAccess the FileCloud admin panel or use the API to find the installed version number, then compare it to 21.3.0.18447.Affected if The installed version is less than 21.3.0.18447.
-
Confirm sharing feature is enabledCheck the FileCloud configuration settings to verify that the sharing feature is turned on, which exposes the /SHARED/ API endpoint.Affected if The sharing feature is enabled and the /SHARED/ endpoint is accessible over the network.
-
Test for user enumeration via /SHARED/ endpointSend HTTP GET requests to /SHARED/<username> for a suspected valid username and an invalid username, then compare the HTTP status codes and response messages.Affected if The endpoint returns different responses for valid and invalid usernames (for example, a valid user returns a 200 OK with share details while an invalid user returns a 404 Not Found).
The environment is affected if FileCloud version is below 21.3.0.18447, the sharing feature is enabled, and the /SHARED/ endpoint leaks different responses for valid versus invalid usernames.
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 · scoped21.3.0.18447
Upgrade to FileCloud 21.3 or later. Additionally, implement rate limiting on share information endpoints and standardize error responses to prevent differentiation between valid and invalid usernames.
21.3.0.18447 or later (21.3 branch)
- Backup your current FileCloud installation and database
- Download FileCloud version 21.3.0.18447 or later from the official FileCloud portal
- Follow the standard FileCloud upgrade procedure for your deployment type (Windows IIS or Linux)
- After upgrade, verify that user enumeration via /SHARED/<username> paths no longer reveals user existence
- Test that legitimate sharing functionality continues to work correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-24633 — 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-2022-24633 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