CVE-2022-31022
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 · uneditedBleve is a text indexing library for go. Bleve includes HTTP utilities under bleve/http package, that are used by its sample application. These HTTP methods pave way for exploitation of a node’s filesystem where the bleve index resides, if the user has used bleve’s own HTTP (bleve/http) handlers for exposing the access to the indexes. For instance, the CreateIndexHandler (`http/index_create.go`) and DeleteIndexHandler (`http/index_delete.go`) enable an attacker to create a bleve index (directory structure) anywhere where the user running the server has the write permissions and to delete recursively any directory owned by the same user account. Users who have used the bleve/http package for exposing access to bleve index without the explicit handling for the Role Based Access Controls(RBAC) of the index assets would be impacted by this issue. Version 2.5.0 relocated the `http/` dir used _only_ by bleve-explorer to `blevesearch/bleve-explorer`, thereby addressing the issue. However, the http package is purely intended to be used for demonstration purposes. Bleve was never designed handle the RBACs, nor it was ever advertised to be used in that way. The collaborators of this project have decided to stay away from adding any authentication or authorization to bleve project at the moment. The bleve/http package is mainly for demonstration purposes and it lacks exhaustive validation of the user inputs as well as any authentication and authorization measures. It is recommended to not use bleve/http in production use cases.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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>= 0.1.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 · scoped2.5.0 or later
- Upgrade to Bleve version 2.5.0 or later
- If you were using the bleve/http package, update your import paths to use the new separate repository blevesearch/bleve-explorer (github.com/blevesearch/bleve-explorer)
- Remove any usage of bleve/http from production code - this package is for demonstration purposes only
- If you need HTTP handlers in production, implement your own authentication/authorization layer or use a reverse proxy with authentication in front of Bleve
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-2022-31022 — 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-2022-31022 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