CVE-2022-24849
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 · uneditedDisCatSharp is a Discord API wrapper for .NET. Users of versions 9.8.5, 9.8.6, 9.9.0 and previously published prereleases of 10.0.0 who have used either one of the two `RequireDisCatSharpDeveloperAttribute`s or the `BaseDiscordClient.LibraryDeveloperTeam` have potentially had their bot token sent to a web server not affiliated with Discord. This server is owned and operated by DisCatSharp's development team. The tokens were not logged, yet it is still advisable to reset the tokens of potentially affected bots. 9.9.1 has been released to patch the issue for the current stable release and the current 10.0.0 prereleases are also no longer affected. Users unable to upgrade should remove all uses of the two `RequireDisCatSharpDeveloperAttribute`s and all direct calls to `BaseDiscordClient.LibraryDeveloperTeam`.
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 confidenceDisCatSharp versions 9.8.5, 9.8.6, 9.9.0 and prereleases of 10.0.0 contained code that sent Discord bot tokens to an unauthorized third-party server controlled by the library's developers when users employed either the RequireDisCatSharpDeveloperAttribute or accessed BaseDiscordClient.LibraryDeveloperTeam. While tokens were not logged, they were transmitted over the network to a non-Discord server.
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>= 9.8.5, < 9.9.1CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/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 DisCatSharp package versionInspect your project file (.csproj), packages.config, or the installed DisCatSharp DLL version property. Look for the DisCatSharp package version number.Affected if The installed version is 9.8.5, 9.8.6, 9.9.0, or any 10.0.0 prerelease (anything >= 9.8.5 and < 9.9.1).
-
Search for RequireDisCatSharpDeveloperAttribute usageSearch your codebase for any usage of [RequireDisCatSharpDeveloper] attribute on commands, methods, or classes, or any references to RequireDisCatSharpDeveloperAttribute.Affected if This attribute is present in your code and the library version is vulnerable.
-
Search for LibraryDeveloperTeam property accessSearch your codebase for any calls to BaseDiscordClient.LibraryDeveloperTeam or client.LibraryDeveloperTeam.Affected if This property is accessed in your code and the library version is vulnerable.
-
Inspect network traffic to unauthorized serversUse a network monitoring tool (such as Wireshark, Fiddler, or your system's network log) to observe outgoing HTTP/HTTPS requests from your bot application.Affected if Requests are being sent to any server other than discord.com or your configured webhooks that contain bot tokens in the request body or headers.
Your environment is affected if you have DisCatSharp version 9.8.5 through 9.9.0 (or a 10.0.0 prerelease) AND you use RequireDisCatSharpDeveloperAttribute or access LibraryDeveloperTeam in your code.
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 · scoped9.9.1
Upgrade to DisCatSharp version 9.9.1 or later (or patched 10.0.0 prereleases), remove all usage of the two vulnerable attributes and method calls, and reset all potentially affected bot tokens as a precautionary measure.
DisCatSharp version 9.9.1 (or later stable release)
- Update the DisCatSharp NuGet package to version 9.9.1 or later via NuGet package manager or dotnet CLI
- Review the codebase for any usage of RequireDisCatSharpDeveloperAttribute and remove if found
- Review the codebase for any direct calls to BaseDiscordClient.LibraryDeveloperTeam and remove if found
- As a precautionary measure, reset the bot tokens that were used with the affected versions
- Verify the application compiles and functions correctly after the upgrade
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-2022-24849 — 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-2022-24849 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