CVE-2022-29539
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 · uneditedresi-calltrace in RESI Gemini-Net 4.2 is affected by OS Command Injection. It does not properly check the parameters sent as input before they are processed on the server. Due to the lack of validation of user input, an unauthenticated attacker can bypass the syntax intended by the software (e.g., concatenate `&|;\r\ commands) and inject arbitrary system commands with the privileges of the application user.
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 confidenceUnauthenticated OS command injection in the resi-calltrace component of RESI Gemini-Net 4.2. The application fails to validate user-supplied input before passing it to system command execution, allowing attackers to inject shell metacharacters (&|;) to execute arbitrary commands with the application's privileges.
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= 4.2CVSS 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.
-
Identify if RESI Gemini-Net is installedCheck system inventory or running services for RESI Gemini-Net software. Look for process names, installed applications, or web services responding on typical ports.Affected if RESI Gemini-Net software is present on the system
-
Verify the installed version is 4.2Check the product version through the application's web interface, configuration files, or software inventory tools. Compare against the affected version range.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.2
-
Confirm resi-calltrace component is accessibleCheck if the resi-calltrace web endpoint or API is exposed and reachable. This may be accessible via HTTP/HTTPS on common web ports.Affected if The resi-calltrace component is exposed and responds to requests without authentication
-
Check for input validation on calltrace inputsIf you have access to logs or testing capability, examine whether user-supplied input in calltrace parameters is validated or if shell metacharacters (&|;) are filtered.Affected if User input is passed to system calls without validation or filtering of shell metacharacters
The environment is affected if RESI Gemini-Net version 4.2 is running with the resi-calltrace component exposed and accepting unauthenticated input without proper 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 dataImplement strict input validation with allowlist filtering or use parameterized APIs instead of shell execution. If possible, apply vendor patches when available; otherwise, consider a WAF rule to block command injection patterns until the underlying code can be fixed.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-29539 — 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-2022-29539 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