CVE-2022-33128
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 · uneditedRG-EG series gateway EG350 EG_RGOS 11.1(6) was discovered to contain a SQL injection vulnerability via the function get_alarmAction at /alarm_pi/alarmService.php.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in the get_alarmAction function of /alarm_pi/alarmService.php on RG-EG350 gateways running EG_RGOS 11.1(6). An attacker can inject malicious SQL queries via HTTP requests to the alarmService endpoint, potentially allowing unauthorized database access, data exfiltration, or compromise of the gateway device.
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= eg_rgos_11.1\(6\)CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 the RG-EG350 gateway modelLog into the device web interface or check the device label/model number to confirm the hardware is an RG-EG350 gatewayAffected if The device is not an RG-EG350 model, the detection does not apply
-
Check the installed firmware versionAccess the web management interface, navigate to System Status or About page to view the firmware version. Alternatively, use CLI command 'show version' or check the startup bannerAffected if The firmware version is exactly EG_RGOS 11.1(6)
-
Verify the alarmService.php endpoint existsAttempt to access the URI /alarm_pi/alarmService.php on the device's web server (e.g., http://<device-ip>/alarm_pi/alarmService.php)Affected if The endpoint returns a response (200, 404, or any HTTP response rather than a connection timeout), indicating the PHP file is present and reachable
-
Confirm the web management interface is exposedVerify that the device's HTTP/HTTPS management interface is accessible from the network by attempting a connection to ports 80 or 443Affected if The web interface is reachable from network segments where untrusted users could send requests
You are affected if you have an RG-EG350 gateway running exactly firmware EG_RGOS 11.1(6) with the alarmService.php endpoint accessible on the network.
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 dataApply vendor firmware patch when available; until then, restrict network access to the web management interface, implement WAF rules to detect SQL injection patterns, and monitor for suspicious requests to alarmService.php.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-33128 — 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-2022-33128 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