CVE-2022-45929
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 · uneditedNorthern.tech Mender 3.3.x before 3.3.2, 3.5.x before 3.5.0, and 3.6.x before 3.6.0 has Incorrect Access Control and allows users to change their roles and could allow privilege escalation from a low-privileged read-only user to a high-privileged user.
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 confidenceMender before 3.3.2, 3.5.0, and 3.6.0 contains an incorrect access control vulnerability where low-privileged read-only users can modify their own role assignments, enabling privilege escalation to high-privileged administrator or developer roles.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 installed Mender server versionCheck the Mender UI or API, or inspect the Mender server container/image version tags and compare to 3.3.2, 3.5.0, and 3.6.0Affected if version is lower than 3.3.2, or between 3.3.2 and 3.5.0 (exclusive), or between 3.5.0 and 3.6.0 (exclusive)
-
Confirm Mender user account roleLog into the Mender UI or query the API to see what role the user account has assignedAffected if user has only read-only or standard user role permissions
-
Test role modification capabilityAs a low-privileged read-only user, attempt to access the user settings or role assignment API endpoint and try to modify own roleAffected if user can change their own role from read-only to admin or developer without admin privileges
-
Check API authorization headersUse a read-only user token and inspect API responses when calling endpoints that should be restricted (such as PUT/POST /api/management/v1/users/{id}/roles)Affected if API accepts role modification requests from read-only user tokens
If Mender version is below 3.3.2, 3.5.0, or 3.6.0 AND a read-only user can escalate their own privileges, the environment is vulnerable.
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 · scopedUpgrade Mender to version 3.3.2, 3.5.0, 3.6.0 or later to receive the access control fix that properly enforces role-based permissions.
Mender 3.3.2, 3.5.0, or 3.6.0 (depending on your release track)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Mender version by checking the Mender server configuration or UI.
- 2. If running Mender 3.3.x, upgrade to version 3.3.2 or later.
- 3. If running Mender 3.5.x, upgrade to version 3.5.0 or later.
- 4. If running Mender 3.6.x, upgrade to version 3.6.0 or later.
- 5. After upgrade, verify that role modification privileges are properly restricted by testing with a low-privileged read-only user account.
- 6. Confirm the user can no longer escalate their own privileges to higher-privileged roles.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-45929 — 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-2022-45929 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