CVE-2022-36302
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 · uneditedFile path manipulation vulnerability in BF-OS version 3.00 up to and including 3.83 allows an attacker to modify the file path to access different resources, which may contain sensitive information.
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 path traversal vulnerability in BF-OS versions 3.00 through 3.83 where user-supplied file path input is not properly validated, allowing attackers to use '../' or absolute path sequences to escape the intended directory and access sensitive files outside the expected scope.
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>= 3.00, <= 3.83CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 BF-OS versionLocate the BF-OS installation directory and check the version information file or system info command (e.g., bosch_version, system_info, or check the firmware/metadata files in the installation folder)Affected if The installed version is 3.00, 3.01, 3.02, ..., up to and including 3.83 (any version >= 3.00 and <= 3.83 is affected)
-
Confirm file path input feature is in useIdentify whether BF-OS is configured to accept user-supplied file paths through any API, web interface, CLI parameter, or configuration setting that handles file operationsAffected if The system accepts file path input from users or external sources for any file read/write operations
-
Check for path traversal mitigation in file handling moduleInspect the file handling configuration or source code module responsible for processing file paths, looking for input validation logic that checks for '../' sequences, absolute paths, or path canonicalizationAffected if No traversal protection is found (the validation is missing or disabled) in the file path handling component
-
Verify allowed directory restrictionsReview the BF-OS configuration files or access control settings to determine if file operations are restricted to a specific base directoryAffected if There is no enforced base directory constraint or allowlist defining where file operations can execute
You are affected if BF-OS version is between 3.00 and 3.83 inclusive AND the system accepts user-supplied file paths without proper traversal validation.
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 strict input validation and canonicalization of file paths before use, ensuring paths resolve within allowed directories and rejecting paths containing traversal sequences.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation40.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $20,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-36302 — 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-2022-36302 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