CVE-2022-38660
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 · uneditedHCL XPages applications are susceptible to a Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to perform actions in the application on behalf of the logged in user.
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 confidenceHCL XPages applications lack anti-CSRF protections, allowing unauthenticated attackers to craft malicious requests that execute in the context of a logged-in user's session. The vulnerability stems from missing token validation or SameSite cookie attributes on form submissions and state-changing operations.
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< 9.0.1= 9.0.1CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 HCL Domino versionRun command 'show server' in Domino console or check the Notes.ini version string. On Windows, check Program Files\HCL\Domino\notes.ini or registry. On Linux/Unix, check /opt/ibm/domino/notes.iniAffected if Version is 9.0.1 or any version below 9.0.1 (for example, 9.0.0, 8.5.x series)
-
Confirm XPages runtime is installedCheck for the presence of the XPages runtime by looking for com.ibm.xsp_*.jar in the Domino data directory, or query the Domino HTTP task for loaded extensionsAffected if XPages runtime is installed and active on the server
-
Identify XPages databases with state-changing operationsReview NSF databases for XPages applications (look for .nsf files containing XPages components). Inspect the application's xsp.properties or faces-config.xml for form-based state-changing operationsAffected if XPages applications exist that accept form submissions or perform state-changing operations (POST requests)
-
Check for SameSite cookie configurationInspect the Domino httpd configuration or notes.ini for 'HTTPAdditionalCookieAttributes' or 'CookieSameSite' settings. Check the XPages application's session configuration for cookie attributesAffected if No SameSite attribute is set on session cookies, or cookies are set to 'None' without Secure flag
-
Verify CSRF token implementation in XPagesReview XPages source code or application configuration for anti-CSRF token validation. Check if viewstate or custom token parameters are validated on form submissionsAffected if XPages forms lack CSRF token validation and rely solely on session authentication
Environment is affected if running Domino version 9.0.1 or earlier with active XPages applications that perform state-changing operations without SameSite cookie protections or anti-CSRF token 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 data9.0.1
Implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing endpoints and configure SameSite attributes on session cookies to prevent cross-origin request forgery.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-38660 — 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-2022-38660 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