CVE-2022-40258
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 · uneditedAMI Megarac Weak password hashes for Redfish & API
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 confidenceAMI Megarac BMC firmware uses weak password hashing algorithms for credentials used in Redfish and API management interfaces. This could allow attackers to obtain password hashes and crack them offline, potentially gaining unauthorized administrative access to the BMC.
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< 7.00< 5.00CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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 BMC firmware versionAccess the BMC web interface or use IPMI command 'ipmitool mc info' or Redfish API endpoint '/redfish/v1/Managers/1' to retrieve the firmware version stringAffected if The version displayed is Ami Megarac Spx 12 with version below 7.00, or Ami Megarac Spx 13 with version below 5.00
-
Confirm Megarac Spx product lineLocate the product name or family identifier in the BMC firmware information (typically shown in the web UI header, IPMI output, or Redfish Manager resource)Affected if The product is identified as Ami Megarac Spx 12 or Ami Megarac Spx 13
-
Determine if Redfish interface is exposedCheck if the BMC Redfish API endpoint responds by accessing https://<BMC-IP>/redfish/v1/ or using curl/Invoke-WebRequestAffected if Redfish service is enabled and accessible on the network, as weak hashing applies to credentials used in this interface
-
Verify API management interface availabilityTest for BMC API endpoints (typically at /api or /api/v1) via web browser or HTTP clientAffected if API management interface is enabled and reachable, as this is the second affected interface listed
You are affected if your BMC runs Ami Megarac Spx 12 version below 7.00 or Ami Megarac Spx 13 version below 5.00, and either the Redfish or API management interface is enabled and network-accessible.
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 · scoped5.007.00
Update BMC firmware to the latest version from the vendor that addresses this vulnerability. Ensure default credentials are changed to strong, unique passwords and implement network segmentation for management interfaces.
Megarac Spx 12: >= 7.00 | Megarac Spx 13: >= 5.00
- 1. Identify the current Megarac SPx version running on the affected system
- 2. For Megarac Spx 12: Upgrade to version 7.00 or later
- 3. For Megarac Spx 13: Upgrade to version 5.00 or later
- 4. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the new firmware version
- 5. Confirm the password hashing mechanism has been strengthened (e.g., proper salting, stronger algorithms)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-40258 — 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-2022-40258 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