CVE-2022-32540
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 · uneditedInformation Disclosure in Operator Client application in BVMS 10.1.1, 11.0 and 11.1.0 and VIDEOJET Decoder VJD-7513 versions 10.23 and 10.30 allows man-in-the-middle attacker to compromise confidential video stream. This is only applicable for UDP encryption when target system contains cameras with platform CPP13 or CPP14 and firmware version 8.x.
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 confidenceA man-in-the-middle vulnerability in the BVMS Operator Client and VIDEOJET Decoder VJD-7513 allows attackers to intercept confidential video streams when UDP encryption is used with cameras on CPP13 or CPP14 platforms running firmware version 8.x. The vulnerability enables eavesdropping on video communications due to insufficient protection in the UDP encryption mechanism.
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>= 10.1, <= 10.1.1>= 11.1, <= 11.1.0= 11.0= 10.23.0002= 10.30.0005CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Identify BVMS Operator Client versionOpen BVMS Configuration Client, go to System > System Overview, or check the installed software version in Windows Programs and FeaturesAffected if Version is 10.1, 10.1.1, 11.0, 11.1, or 11.1.0
-
Identify Videojet Decoder 7513 firmware versionAccess the decoder web interface or check via BVMS Device Manager, look for firmware version under device propertiesAffected if Firmware version is 10.23.0002 or 10.30.0005
-
Verify if UDP encryption is enabled for video streamsIn BVMS Configuration Client, go to Device Tree > Cameras > Stream Settings, inspect the encryption setting for each camera; or check the decoder network configuration for UDP stream settingsAffected if UDP encryption is enabled and used for camera streams
-
Identify camera platform and firmware versionAccess camera web interface or check via ONVIF/Device Search, look for platform (CPP13/CPP14) and firmware version informationAffected if Cameras run on CPP13 or CPP14 platform with firmware version 8.x
You are affected if your BVMS version is 10.1-10.1.1, 11.0, or 11.1-11.1.0 OR your Videojet Decoder 7513 firmware is 10.23.0002 or 10.30.0005, AND you have UDP encryption enabled with cameras on CPP13/CPP14 platforms running firmware 8.x
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 dataDisable UDP encryption for video streams and use TLS-protected channels instead; also upgrade camera firmware beyond 8.x if patches become available, and implement network segmentation to limit MITM attack surfaces.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-32540 — 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-2022-32540 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