CVE-2022-47560
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 · uneditedThe lack of web request control on ekorCCP and ekorRCI devices allows a potential attacker to create custom requests to execute malicious actions when a user is logged in.
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 · moderate confidenceMissing web request control (likely CSRF protection) in ekorCCP and ekorRCI devices allows authenticated users to be tricked into executing unintended actions via malicious requests, exploiting the trust the server places in authenticated browser sessions.
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= 601j= 601jCVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 the device model and firmware versionAccess the device's web interface or system information page to confirm the model is Ormazabal Ekorrci or Ekorccp and note the firmware versionAffected if The firmware version matches 601j for either Ormazabal Ekorrci or Ekorccp
-
Verify if the web interface is accessibleConfirm the device has an active web management interface accessible via HTTP/HTTPSAffected if The web interface is enabled and accessible on the device
-
Inspect login and form submissions for CSRF tokensLog into the web interface and examine the HTML source of state-changing forms (configuration, control actions) to determine if hidden CSRF token fields are present in POST requestsAffected if Forms lack anti-CSRF token fields and the server accepts requests without validating token consistency
-
Check cookie attributes for SameSite configurationUsing browser developer tools or a web proxy, capture a session cookie and inspect the Set-Cookie headers for the SameSite attributeAffected if Cookies are sent without SameSite attribute or with SameSite=None without Secure flag
-
Inspect server request validation headersMake a state-changing request with a mismatched Origin or Referer header and observe if the server accepts or rejects the requestAffected if The server accepts requests with missing or mismatched Origin/Referer headers for authenticated operations
A user is affected if they operate Ormazabal Ekorrci or Ekorccp devices on firmware version 601j with web interfaces that lack CSRF protection mechanisms such as anti-CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie attributes, and origin/referer validation.
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 or request validation on all state-changing operations, configure SameSite cookie attributes, and add origin/referer validation for web requests.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-47560 — 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-2022-47560 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