CVE-2022-37164
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 · uneditedInoda OnTrack v3.4 employs a weak password policy which allows attackers to potentially gain unauthorized access to the application via brute-force attacks. Additionally, user passwords are hashed without a salt or pepper making it much easier for tools like hashcat to crack the hashes.
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 confidenceInoda OnTrack v3.4 has a weak password policy that permits brute-force attacks, and stores password hashes without salt or pepper, making them susceptible to efficient cracking via tools like hashcat.
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= 3.4CVSS 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.
-
Identify OnTrack installation versionCheck the installed version of Inoda OnTrack by inspecting the application metadata, about page, or version file. Common locations include the application banner, config file, or system information panel.Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.4 (Ontrack Project Ontrack v3.4)
-
Examine password policy configurationAccess the OnTrack administrative console or configuration settings and locate the password policy section. Verify whether minimum length requirements, complexity rules (uppercase, lowercase, numbers, special characters), and lockout thresholds are defined and enforced.Affected if No password complexity requirements are defined, or no account lockout threshold is configured, allowing unlimited login attempts
-
Inspect password hash storage in databaseConnect to the OnTrack database and examine the users or accounts table. Look at the password field storage format - check if the hash appears as a raw hash without any salt value embedded or prepended, or if there is a separate salt column for each user.Affected if Password hashes are stored without a unique salt per user (no salt column exists or salt is not incorporated into the hash)
-
Verify pepper implementation for password hashingReview the application source code or configuration files to determine if a pepper value (application-level secret key used in hashing) is applied during password verification and storage.Affected if No pepper value is used in the password hashing process - hashes rely solely on the password without an additional secret key
A defender is affected if running OnTrack version 3.4 with a weak or missing password policy AND storing password hashes without unique salts and without application-level peppering.
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 a strong password policy (minimum length, complexity requirements, account lockout thresholds) and re-architecture password storage to use unique salts per user and application-level peppering with a modern hashing algorithm like bcrypt or Argon2.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-37164 — 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-2022-37164 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