CVE-2022-35487
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 · uneditedZammad 5.2.0 suffers from Incorrect Access Control. Zammad did not correctly perform authorization on certain attachment endpoints. This could be abused by an unauthenticated attacker to gain access to attachments, such as emails or attached files.
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 confidenceZammad 5.2.0 has an Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in its attachment handling endpoints. The application fails to properly authorize requests for attachments, allowing unauthenticated attackers to access sensitive files such as emails and uploaded documents by directly requesting attachment URLs without authentication.
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= 5.2.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 installed Zammad versionRun the command: zammad run rails r "puts Setting.get('version')" or check the /opt/zammad directory for version files. Alternatively, access the web interface and check the footer or /api/v1/config_exports endpoint.Affected if Version is exactly 5.2.0
-
Locate attachment endpoint configurationExamine the web server configuration (Nginx/Apache) for Zammad. Look for routes handling /assets/ and /api/v1/attachment/ paths in /etc/nginx/sites-available/zammad or /etc/apache2/sites-available/zammad.conf.Affected if Attachment endpoints are not explicitly restricted by authentication rules in the web server config
-
Test unauthenticated attachment accessAttempt to access a known attachment URL pattern without providing credentials. The typical pattern is /api/v1/attachment/{id}/{filename} or /assets/images/uploads/{id}. Use a browser incognito window or curl without cookies.Affected if The attachment content is served without requiring login (HTTP 200 response with file content instead of redirect to login)
-
Verify authentication is enforced on attachment routesReview Zammad's routes.rb file at /opt/zammad/config/routes.rb or check the application configuration for 'auth' constraints on attachment-related routes.Affected if Routes for /api/v1/attachment/ do not include :require_user or :authenticate_user constraints
You are affected if Zammad version 5.2.0 is installed AND attachment endpoints can be accessed without authentication, allowing anyone with the URL to retrieve sensitive uploaded files.
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 dataUpgrade Zammad to the patched version addressing this authorization bypass. Until then, consider restricting network access to attachment endpoints via web server configuration or WAF rules as a temporary measure.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-35487 — 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-2022-35487 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