CVE-2022-44232
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 · uneditedlibming 0.4.8 0.4.8 is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow. In getInt() in decompile.c unknown type may lead to denial of service. This is a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-9132 and CVE-2018-20427.
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 confidencelibming 0.4.8 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in the getInt() function within decompile.c. The vulnerability occurs when processing an 'unknown type' input, allowing an attacker to cause a denial of service via buffer overflow. This is a distinct vulnerability from previously disclosed CVE-2018-9132 and CVE-2018-20427.
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= 0.4.8CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check if libming is installedRun 'dpkg -l | grep libming' on Debian-based systems, or 'rpm -qa | grep ming' on Red Hat-based systems, or check for the library file in standard locations like /usr/lib/Affected if libming library files are present on the system
-
Determine the installed libming versionRun 'ming-config --version' if available, or check the library file version with 'file /usr/lib/libming*.so*' or look for version strings in the binaryAffected if The installed version is 0.4.8 exactly
-
Identify if decompile tool is in useCheck for the presence of the 'decompile' utility (commonly named 'decompile' or part of ming-utils package) which invokes the vulnerable decompile.c codeAffected if The decompile utility or any tool using libming's decompilation functions is installed and accessible
-
Verify the vulnerable getInt() function is reachableInspect which libming utilities or custom code calls the getInt() function in decompile.c by reviewing application code or checking which binaries link against libmingAffected if Any application or tool uses libming to process SWF/Flash files through the decompilation code path
A system is affected if libming version 0.4.8 is installed AND any tool or application uses the decompilation functionality to process input files, as the buffer overflow in getInt() triggers when processing unknown type input.
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 libming that addresses this buffer overflow, or implement bounds checking and input validation in the getInt() function to handle unknown types safely.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,568.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-44232 — 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-2022-44232 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