CVE-2022-39039
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 · uneditedaEnrich’s a+HRD has inadequate filtering for specific URL parameter. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to send arbitrary HTTP(s) request to launch Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attack, to perform arbitrary system command or disrupt service.
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 confidenceaEnrich's a+HRD contains an SSRF vulnerability due to inadequate filtering of URL parameters. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this to send arbitrary HTTP(S) requests to internal or external resources, potentially leading to command execution or service disruption.
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= 6.8= 7.0CVSS 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
- 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 if a+HRD is installedCheck the application's version information page or run 'a+HRD version' command if available in the systemAffected if The product a+HRD is present and the version is 6.8 or 7.0
-
Locate the a+HRD version fileSearch for version files in the a+HRD installation directory, typically found in config/version.conf or similar configuration files within the application rootAffected if Version file shows 6.8 or 7.0
-
Identify exposed URL parameter endpointsReview web application logs or use a proxy to observe which endpoints accept URL parameters (e.g., parameter names containing 'url', 'uri', 'link', 'redirect', or similar)Affected if Endpoints accepting URL parameters without strict validation are accessible
-
Test for SSRF vulnerabilitySend a crafted request with an internal URL (e.g., http://127.0.0.1 or http://localhost) to suspected endpoints and observe if the application makes the requested connectionAffected if The application successfully makes HTTP requests to arbitrary URLs provided in parameters
A system is affected if a+HRD version 6.8 or 7.0 is installed and URL parameter endpoints are accessible without strict filtering.
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 validation and allowlist-based filtering for URL parameters to prevent arbitrary request forwarding. Restrict outbound connections from the application server and disable unnecessary URI schemes.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-39039 — 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-2022-39039 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