CVE-2022-46389
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 · uneditedThere exists a reflected XSS within the logout functionality of ServiceNow versions lower than Quebec Patch 10 Hotfix 11b, Rome Patch 10 Hotfix 3b, San Diego Patch 9, Tokyo Patch 4, and Utah GA. This enables an unauthenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the browser-based web console.
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 exists in the logout functionality of multiple ServiceNow product versions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can inject malicious JavaScript code into the logout URL parameter, which executes in the victim's browser when they trigger the logout action, potentially allowing session hijacking or credential theft.
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= quebec= rome= san_diego= tokyo= utahCVSS 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 your ServiceNow versionLog into ServiceNow as an admin, then navigate to System Properties > About or check the instance URL which typically contains the version identifier (e.g., instance.servicenow.com/quebec, /rome, /san_diego, /tokyo, /utah). You can also check System Diagnostics > About for the exact version number.Affected if Your version matches Quebec, Rome, San Diego, Tokyo, or Utah (any build within these releases).
-
Verify logout functionality existsCheck if your ServiceNow instance has a logout mechanism. Look for logout links or endpoints in your web interface, typically at paths like /logout.do, /logout, or /login_then_logout. Confirm the logout functionality is active and accessible to users.Affected if The logout functionality is present and accessible on your instance.
-
Determine if logout URL accepts parametersExamine the logout URL structure by triggering a logout and observing the resulting URL in your browser address bar. Look for any URL parameters that could be manipulated (such as redirect= or url= parameters). Test whether the logout endpoint reflects these parameters back into the page.Affected if The logout URL accepts and reflects URL parameters without proper sanitization.
-
Assess external exposureReview whether your ServiceNow instance is internet-facing and accessible from outside your corporate network. Check firewall rules, VPN requirements, and access controls. Internet-facing instances have higher risk for unauthenticated attacks.Affected if Your instance is directly accessible from the internet without VPN or authentication barriers.
You are affected if your ServiceNow instance runs Quebec, Rome, San Diego, Tokyo, or Utah AND has logout functionality accessible, particularly if the instance is internet-facing.
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 · scopedApply the appropriate ServiceNow patch for your version: Quebec Patch 10 Hotfix 11b, Rome Patch 10 Hotfix 3b, San Diego Patch 9, Tokyo Patch 4, or upgrade to Utah GA. Prioritize patching for any internet-facing instances.
Upgrade to Quebec Patch 10 Hotfix 11b / Rome Patch 10 Hotfix 3b / San Diego Patch 9 / Tokyo Patch 4 / Utah GA (whichever is the next supported version for the instance)
- Identify the current ServiceNow instance version (e.g., Quebec, Rome, San Diego, Tokyo, or Utah)
- Locate the instance in the ServiceNow instance dashboard to confirm exact version and patch level
- For Quebec instances: Upgrade or apply Quebec Patch 10 Hotfix 11b or later
- For Rome instances: Upgrade or apply Rome Patch 10 Hotfix 3b or later
- For San Diego instances: Upgrade or apply San Diego Patch 9 or later
- For Tokyo instances: Upgrade or apply Tokyo Patch 4 or later
- For Utah instances: Ensure running Utah GA or later (Utah has no prior patches to apply)
- After patching, verify the fix by testing the logout functionality with a controlled XSS payload to confirm the vulnerability is remediated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-46389 — 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-2022-46389 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