CVE-2022-29560
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions < 2.15.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions < 2.15.1). Affected devices do not properly validate user input, making them susceptible to command injection. An attacker with access to either the shell or the web CLI with administrator privileges could access the underlying operating system as the root 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 analysisUser input reaches a command interpreter without being fully separated from the command itself, so an attacker can append instructions of their own. Because those run with the application's privileges, it frequently means control of the host. The lasting fix is to avoid constructing commands from input — call APIs directly and pass arguments as data, never as concatenated strings.
General guidance for the command injection class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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< 2.15.1< 2.15.1< 2.15.1< 2.15.1< 2.15.1< 2.15.1< 2.15.1< 2.15.1CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 · scoped2.15.1
Firmware version 2.15.1 or later
- 1. Identify the specific Ruggedcom ROX device model (e.g., RX1500, RX1510, RX5000, etc.)
- 2. Check the current firmware version by accessing the device's web interface or CLI
- 3. Obtain the firmware version 2.15.1 or later from Siemens via the productcert portal (https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-599506.pdf) or official Siemens support channels
- 4. Review the firmware upgrade instructions in the Siemens security advisory or device documentation
- 5. Back up the current device configuration as recommended by Siemens documentation
- 6. Upload and apply firmware version 2.15.1 or later via the device's web interface or CLI following Siemens upgrade procedures
- 7. Verify the firmware upgrade was successful by checking the new version number
- 8. Verify the device configuration is intact and all services are functioning normally
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-29560 — 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-2022-29560 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