CVE-2022-47395
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 · uneditedSewio’s Real-Time Location System (RTLS) Studio version 2.0.0 up to and including version 2.6.2 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery in its monitor services. An attacker could take advantage of this vulnerability to execute arbitrary maintenance operations and cause a denial-of-service condition.
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 confidenceSewio RTLS Studio versions 2.0.0 through 2.6.2 contain a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the monitor services. Attackers can trick authenticated users into sending malicious requests that trigger arbitrary maintenance operations, leading to denial-of-service conditions.
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>= 2.0.0, <= 2.6.2CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Check installed RTLS Studio versionLocate the RTLS Studio installation directory or check the application help/about section for the exact version numberAffected if The version is >= 2.0.0 and <= 2.6.2
-
Verify monitor services are runningAccess the RTLS Studio administration interface or check running services on the host to confirm monitor services module is activeAffected if Monitor services are enabled and accessible via the web interface
-
Confirm web-based management interface is exposedAttempt to access the RTLS Studio web interface using the configured hostname or IP address on the expected portAffected if The web interface is reachable and accepts authenticated session cookies
-
Inspect session cookie configurationLog into the web interface and examine session cookies using browser developer tools or a request interceptor to check for SameSite attributeAffected if Session cookies lack SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attributes, or no anti-CSRF tokens are present in state-changing requests
You are affected if RTLS Studio version is between 2.0.0 and 2.6.2, monitor services are enabled, and the web interface is accessible without proper anti-CSRF protections.
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 anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations in monitor services, configure SameSite attributes on session cookies, and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-47395 — 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-2022-47395 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