CVE-2022-30331
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 · uneditedThe User-Defined Functions (UDF) feature in TigerGraph 3.6.0 allows installation of a query (in the GSQL query language) without proper validation. Consequently, an attacker can execute arbitrary C++ code. NOTE: the vendor's position is "GSQL was behaving as expected."
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 confidenceThe User-Defined Functions (UDF) feature in TigerGraph 3.6.0 lacks proper input validation during GSQL query installation, allowing an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary C++ code on the host system. This is a direct code injection vulnerability in the database's query language processing layer.
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= 3.6.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 TigerGraph versionRun 'gadmin status' or check /opt/tigergraph/logs/gadmin.log for the installed version numberAffected if The version shown is exactly 3.6.0
-
Verify GSQL accessAttempt to connect to the GSQL shell by running 'gsql' as a user with database access. Check which users have GSQL credentials.Affected if GSQL is accessible to users who should not have query installation privileges
-
Confirm UDF capability existsCheck if the /opt/tigergraph/gdk/gsql/udf directory exists and is populated with template files. This directory contains the user-defined function headers.Affected if The UDF directory and its contents are present on the system
-
Inspect GSQL query installation permissionsRun 'gsql' and attempt to run CREATE QUERY with a UDF. Use 'SHOW PRIVILEGES' for your user to check if they have INSTALL_QUERY or WRITE_UDF permissions.Affected if Non-admin users have permission to install GSQL queries or write UDFs
-
Check for existing custom UDF installationsList files in /opt/tigergraph/gdk/gsql/udf/ and /tmp/tigergraph/gstore/0/default/udf/ to see if any custom UDFs have been installedAffected if Custom UDF files exist in the system, indicating the feature was used
You are affected if you are running TigerGraph 3.6.0 and any non-admin users have GSQL query installation or UDF write permissions enabled.
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 dataSince the vendor considers this expected behavior, organizations should restrict GSQL UDF permissions to trusted administrators only, implement network segmentation to limit database exposure, and monitor for unauthorized query installations. Consider upgrading if a patched version becomes available.
- Consultation4.0 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 $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-30331 — 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-2022-30331 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