CVE-2022-36955
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 · uneditedIn Veritas NetBackup, an attacker with unprivileged local access to a NetBackup Client may send specific commands to escalate their privileges. This affects 8.0 through 8.1.2, 8.2, 8.3 through 8.3.0.2, 9.x through 9.0.0.1, and 9.1.x through 9.1.0.1.
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 confidenceVeritas NetBackup contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability where an unprivileged local user with access to a NetBackup Client can send specific commands to gain elevated privileges. The vulnerability affects versions 8.0 through 8.1.2, 8.2, 8.3 through 8.3.0.2, 9.x through 9.0.0.1, and 9.1.x through 9.1.0.1.
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>= 8.0, <= 8.1.2>= 8.3.0.0, <= 8.3.0.2= 8.2= 9.0= 9.1.0.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 NetBackup installationLook for NetBackup processes, services, or binaries on the system. On Windows, check Services for 'Veritas NetBackup' services. On Linux/Unix, run 'ps -ef | grep -i netbackup' or check for /usr/openv/netbackup directory.Affected if NetBackup is not installed on the system.
-
Identify NetBackup versionRun the NetBackup version command if available, such as 'nbversion' on Linux/Unix or check the About section in NetBackup Administration Console on Windows. Alternatively, examine installation logs or registry keys for version information.Affected if Unable to determine the NetBackup version.
-
Compare version against affected rangesCompare your installed version to these affected ranges: 8.0 through 8.1.2, 8.2, 8.3.0.0 through 8.3.0.2, 9.0.0.0 through 9.0.0.1, and 9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.1. Any version matching these ranges is vulnerable.Affected if The installed version falls within any of the affected version ranges.
-
Verify NetBackup Client roleCheck if the system is configured as a NetBackup Client by examining the NetBackup configuration, such as the client configuration file or the bpclntcmd output on the system.Affected if The system is not configured as a NetBackup Client, as the vulnerability requires access to a NetBackup Client interface.
If NetBackup is installed, runs a version within 8.0-8.1.2, 8.2, 8.3.0.0-8.3.0.2, 9.0.0.0-9.0.0.1, or 9.1.0.0-9.1.0.1, and is configured as a Client, the environment is affected by this privilege escalation vulnerability.
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 the vendor-provided patch or upgrade NetBackup to a version beyond 9.1.0.1. Restrict local access to trusted personnel and follow least-privilege principles.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,760.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-36955 — 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-2022-36955 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