CVE-2022-45911
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 on the Classic UI login page by injecting arbitrary JavaScript code in the username field. This occurs before the user logs into the system, which means that even if the attacker executes arbitrary JavaScript, they will not get any sensitive information.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Zimbra Collaboration Suite 9.0 Classic UI login page allows injection of arbitrary JavaScript code via the username field. This is a pre-authentication XSS, meaning the malicious script executes before user login, limiting direct access to sensitive data.
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 Zimbra Collaboration Suite versionRun the Zimbra version command: zmcontrol -v or check /opt/zimbra/.version_info. Alternatively, check the admin console for the build version.Affected if The installed version is exactly 9.0.0 (9.0.0.0)
-
Verify Classic UI is accessibleAttempt to access the Classic UI login page at /zimbra/ or /zimbraAdmin/ URLs. Check if the /zimbra/mail?noCookie=1 or similar classic view endpoints respond.Affected if Classic UI login page is reachable (response 200 on the login form)
-
Confirm username field exists in login formInspect the HTML source of the Classic UI login page. Look for an input field named 'username', 'zimbra_user', or similar that accepts user credentials before authentication.Affected if The Classic UI login page contains a username input field that is not properly sanitized when rendered back in the response
You are affected if you are running Zimbra 9.0.0 AND the Classic UI login page is accessible and accepts user input in the username field without proper output encoding.
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 proper input validation and output encoding on the username field in the Classic UI login page to neutralize malicious script injection. Since this is pre-authentication, prioritize deploying the fix to prevent potential future exploitation chains.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-45911 — 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-2022-45911 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