CVE-2022-28860
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 · uneditedAn authentication downgrade in the server in Citilog 8.0 allows an attacker (in a man in the middle position between the server and its smart camera Axis M1125) to achieve HTTP access to the camera.
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 confidenceAn authentication downgrade vulnerability in Citilog 8.0 allows a man-in-the-middle attacker positioned between the server and Axis M1125 camera to force communication to use unencrypted HTTP instead of HTTPS, bypassing authentication and enabling unauthorized camera access.
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= 8.0CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Identify installed Citilog versionCheck the Citilog application or system information to confirm the exact version number is 8.0Affected if The installed version is Citilog version 8.0 exactly
-
Verify server-to-camera communication protocolInspect the camera connection settings or configuration to determine whether HTTP or HTTPS is configured for server-to-camera communicationAffected if HTTP (unencrypted) is enabled or allowed for any server-to-camera connections
-
Check for HTTPS/TLS enforcementReview the security or encryption settings to verify whether HTTPS/TLS is required for all camera communicationsAffected if HTTPS/TLS is not enforced or can be bypassed for camera connections
-
Confirm certificate validation is enabledExamine the TLS/certificate configuration to verify that certificate validation is properly configuredAffected if Certificate validation is disabled, optional, or not properly configured for camera communications
-
Assess network architecture for MITM exposureReview network segmentation and access controls between the server and cameras to determine if an attacker could position themselves between these componentsAffected if The network path between server and cameras lacks proper isolation or allows untrusted intermediate access
A defender is affected if Citilog 8.0 is installed and the server-to-camera communication can use unencrypted HTTP or lacks enforced HTTPS/TLS with proper certificate validation.
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 dataEnforce HTTPS/TLS for all server-to-camera communications, implement certificate validation, and use network segmentation or VPN tunnels to prevent MITM positioning. Review camera configuration to ensure encryption cannot be downgraded.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-28860 — 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-2022-28860 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