CVE-2022-32741
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 · uneditedAttacker is able to determine if the provided username exists (and it's valid) using Request New Password feature, based on the response time.
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 confidenceThis is a username enumeration vulnerability in the password reset functionality. An attacker can determine whether a username exists in the system by measuring response times from the 'Request New Password' feature - valid usernames likely trigger different processing paths (such as sending emails or querying user databases) that result in measurably different response times compared to invalid usernames.
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>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.35>= 8.0.0, < 8.0.23CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Check OTRS versionLocate the installed OTRS version by inspecting the system configuration or about page. In OTRS, the version is typically visible in the admin interface or can be retrieved via command line tools used for OTRS administration.Affected if The installed version falls within 7.0.0 to 7.0.34, or 8.0.0 to 8.0.22 (the vulnerable versions). Versions 7.0.35 and 8.0.23 and later are patched.
-
Verify password reset functionality is accessibleAccess the OTRS login page and locate the 'Request New Password' or password reset link. Confirm the feature is enabled and reachable without authentication.Affected if The password reset module is exposed and functional on the system.
-
Test response time with invalid usernameSubmit a password reset request using a username that does not exist in the system (for example, a random string like 'nonexistentuser123'). Measure the response time from when the request is sent until the system returns a response.Affected if The system processes the request and returns a response.
-
Test response time with valid usernameSubmit a password reset request using a username that is known to exist in the system. Measure the response time and compare it to the time obtained in the previous step.Affected if The response time differs noticeably from the invalid username test, indicating the system takes a different code path for valid usernames (such as querying the user database or initiating email sending).
-
Compare timing differencesRepeat the tests multiple times for both valid and invalid usernames to account for network variability. Calculate the average response times for each case and determine if there is a consistent, measurable difference.Affected if Valid usernames consistently produce measurably faster or slower response times than invalid usernames, allowing an attacker to enumerate valid accounts.
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable OTRS version (below 7.0.35 or 8.0.23) and exhibits measurable response time differences between password reset requests for valid versus invalid usernames.
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.
dbcve · scoped7.0.358.0.23
Implement uniform response handling for password reset requests so that the system returns the same response time and message regardless of whether the provided username exists. This typically involves adding a fixed delay or constant-time response processing.
Upgrade to OTRS 7.0.35 (for 7.x versions) or OTRS 8.0.23 (for 8.x versions)
- Backup your OTRS database and configuration files before proceeding with any upgrade
- Review OTRS upgrade documentation for your current version to understand migration requirements
- Stop the OTRS service to prevent active connections during upgrade
- Upgrade OTRS from version 7.0.x to version 7.0.35, or from version 8.0.x to version 8.0.23, depending on your current major version
- Run the OTRS package manager (bin/otrs.PackageManager.pl) to update all required packages after upgrade
- Restart the OTRS service and verify the application is functioning correctly
- Test the 'Request New Password' functionality to confirm the vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-32741 — 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-2022-32741 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