CVE-2022-41348
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 9.0. XSS can occur via the onerror attribute of an IMG element, leading to information disclosure.
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 confidenceA reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Zimbra Collaboration Suite 9.0 allows attackers to inject malicious JavaScript via the onerror attribute of an IMG element. This occurs when unsanitized user input is reflected in the HTML response without proper encoding, enabling attackers to steal session cookies, credentials, or other sensitive information.
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= 9.0.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 installed Zimbra versionRun 'zmcontrol -v' or check the ZCS version via the admin console under Home > Manage > Zimbra Collaboration. Alternatively, check /opt/zimbra/.install_history or the output of 'zmlocalconfig -s zimbra_version'Affected if The installed version is exactly 9.0.0 (not patched, not another 9.x release)
-
Confirm Zimbra Web Client is accessibleAccess the Zimbra webmail interface at the standard HTTPS port (usually 8443 for public/7071 for admin). The vulnerability is a reflected XSS requiring user interaction with a crafted URL.Affected if The Web Client interface is exposed and users can be tricked into visiting malicious URLs
-
Identify if vulnerable endpoint is in useExamine HTTP responses when submitting user input through webmail or admin interfaces. The vulnerability allows injection via the onerror attribute of an IMG element, meaning input gets reflected into HTML img tags unsanitized.Affected if User-supplied input appears in HTML responses without proper encoding or gets placed into img tag contexts
-
Review access logs for suspicious URL patternsCheck Zimbra proxy and mailbox logs (/opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log, /opt/zimbra/log/nginx.access.log) for requests containing patterns like 'onerror=' or '<img' in parameters.Affected if Log analysis reveals attempts to inject JavaScript via IMG onerror attributes in query parameters
A user is affected if they are running exactly ZCS version 9.0.0 and have the webmail or admin interface accessible to potential attackers who could trick users into clicking crafted links.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of ZCS 9.0 that addresses this XSS vulnerability, or apply vendor-provided patches. Implement output encoding for all user-supplied data before rendering in HTML context.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-41348 — 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-2022-41348 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