CVE-2022-3386
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 · uneditedAdvantech R-SeeNet Versions 2.4.17 and prior are vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow. An unauthorized attacker can use an outsized filename to overflow the stack buffer and enable remote code execution.
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 confidenceAdvantech R-SeeNet versions 2.4.17 and prior contain a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the filename handling logic. An unauthenticated attacker can send a request with an oversized filename to overflow the stack buffer, potentially executing arbitrary code on the affected system.
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<= 2.4.17CVSS 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
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Confirm R-SeeNet installationIdentify if Advantech R-SeeNet software is installed on the system by checking for the application in standard installation directories, running services, or the presence of R-SeeNet web componentsAffected if R-SeeNet is found installed on the system
-
Determine installed versionLocate and read the R-SeeNet version information - this may be in an about page, a version file, or accessible via the web interface or installed binariesAffected if The version is 2.4.17 or any version prior to 2.4.17
-
Check web service exposureVerify if the R-SeeNet web interface is accessible over the network by attempting to access the HTTP/HTTPS service or reviewing firewall rules and network configurationsAffected if The R-SeeNet web service is exposed and accessible to network attackers
-
Review web server logsExamine R-SeeNet web server logs or HTTP access logs for any requests containing unusually long filename parameters that may indicate exploitation attemptsAffected if Logs show requests with oversized filename parameters to the vulnerable endpoint
A user is affected if R-SeeNet version 2.4.17 or prior is installed and its web interface is network-accessible, exposing the filename handling logic to unauthenticated requests
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 proper input validation and bounds checking on filename parameters to prevent buffer overflows. Update to a patched version of R-SeeNet if available.
- 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-2022-3386 — 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-2022-3386 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