CVE-2022-29540
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 Multiple XSS issues. Unauthenticated remote attackers can inject arbitrary web script or HTML into an HTTP GET parameter that reflects user input without sanitization. This exists on numerous application endpoints,
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 confidenceMultiple reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in RESI Gemini-Net 4.2's resi-calltrace component allow unauthenticated remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unsanitized HTTP GET parameters that reflect user input without proper output encoding across numerous application endpoints.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Confirm Gemini-Net versionLocate the installed Gemini-Net version number through the application's about page, administrative interface, or by inspecting the HTTP response headers. Alternatively, check any software inventory or documentation that lists the deployed version.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.2, as this is the only version explicitly listed as affected.
-
Identify if resi-calltrace component is presentAccess the application's URL structure and attempt to locate the /resi-calltrace path or component. Check if this endpoint is reachable within the deployed application.Affected if The resi-calltrace component is present and accessible in the environment.
-
Test GET parameter reflectionSend HTTP GET requests to identified endpoints with arbitrary HTML or script tags in query parameters (for example, ?param=<script>alert(1)</script>). Inspect the HTTP response to determine if the input is reflected back without encoding.Affected if User-supplied GET parameters are reflected in responses without proper output encoding, allowing injected script or HTML to execute.
-
Review application for multiple vulnerable endpointsEnumerate application endpoints and test GET parameters across different paths, particularly those handling call trace, search, or user input functions. Compare behavior against the CVE description of numerous affected endpoints.Affected if Multiple application endpoints reflect unsanitized user input from GET parameters.
A user is affected if the deployed Gemini-Net version is exactly 4.2 AND the resi-calltrace component is accessible, with any GET parameters reflecting user input without encoding in HTTP responses.
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 contextual output encoding on all user-supplied GET parameters and deploy Content Security Policy (CSP) headers as defense-in-depth to prevent XSS execution.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-29540 — 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-2022-29540 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