CVE-2022-3372
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 · uneditedThere is a CSRF vulnerability on Netman-204 version 02.05. An attacker could manage to change administrator passwords through a Cross Site Request Forgery due to the lack of proper validation on the CRSF token. This vulnerability could allow a remote attacker to access the administrator panel, being able to modify different parameters that are critical for industrial operations.
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 confidenceThis is a CSRF vulnerability in Netman-204 version 02.05 where the application fails to properly validate CSRF tokens, allowing attackers to craft malicious requests that trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended actions such as changing passwords or modifying critical industrial operation parameters.
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= 02.05CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 the device modelAccess the web interface of the network device or check the device label/menu for the model name. Look for 'Riello Ups Netman 204' or 'Netman 204' in the device information page.Affected if The device is not a Riello Ups Netman 204 unit
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the Netman 204 web interface and navigate to the 'About' or 'System Information' page to view the installed firmware version. Alternatively, check via SNMP or the device's maintenance console.Affected if The firmware version is 02.05
-
Confirm web management interface is enabledAccess the device's web interface via HTTP/HTTPS on the configured management IP address. Verify that the administration panel is reachable and accepts authentication.Affected if The web management interface is not accessible or not enabled
-
Identify state-changing operationsReview the web interface for administrative functions that modify state: password changes, UPS configuration, network settings, or alarm/notification settings. These are the endpoints that would be vulnerable to CSRF if tokens are missing.Affected if The web interface has administrative functions that perform POST/PUT/DELETE operations without apparent token validation
The environment is affected if the installed device is a Riello Ups Netman 204 with firmware version 02.05 and the web management interface is accessible to authenticated administrators.
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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens for all state-changing operations (POST/PUT/DELETE), ensure tokens are validated server-side on every request, and consider implementing SameSite cookie attributes.
- 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-2022-3372 — 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-2022-3372 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