CVE-2022-47925
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 validate JSON endpoint of the Secvisogram csaf-validator-service in versions < 0.1.0 processes tests with unexpected names. This insufficient input validation of requests by an unauthenticated remote user might lead to a partial DoS of the service. Only the request of the attacker is affected by this vulnerability.
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 confidenceThe validate JSON endpoint in Secvisogram csaf-validator-service versions prior to 0.1.0 insufficiently validates input by processing test names that fall outside expected parameters. An unauthenticated remote attacker can submit specially crafted requests with unexpected test names, causing the service to consume excessive resources and resulting in a partial denial of service affecting only the attacker's own request.
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< 0.1.0CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 version of csaf-validator-serviceCheck the version of the csaf-validator-service or csaf-validator-lib package installed in your environment using your package manager (npm, pip, or similar). Common commands include: npm list csaf-validator-service, pip show csaf-validator-lib, or checking package.json/package-lock.json for the version field.Affected if The installed version is less than 0.1.0
-
Confirm the validate JSON endpoint existsLocate the HTTP endpoints exposed by the csaf-validator-service. This is typically found in the service's API documentation, source code, or by inspecting the running service's route definitions. Look for endpoints that accept JSON validation requests.Affected if The service exposes a validate JSON endpoint that accepts test name parameters
-
Check if the service accepts arbitrary test namesExamine the source code or configuration of the csaf-validator-service for the validate JSON endpoint handler. Look for input validation logic that processes the 'test' or 'test_name' parameter. Determine whether the code validates against an allowlist or rejects unexpected values.Affected if The endpoint processes test names without rejecting unexpected values or without proper allowlist validation
-
Determine if the service is network accessibleVerify whether the csaf-validator-service is listening on a network interface and is reachable from untrusted networks. Check if authentication is required for the validate JSON endpoint.Affected if The service is network-accessible without authentication and accepts requests to the validate JSON endpoint
You are affected if your installed csaf-validator-service or csaf-validator-lib version is below 0.1.0 AND the validate JSON endpoint is exposed and accepts arbitrary test name parameters without proper 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.
dbcve · scoped0.1.0
Upgrade to csaf-validator-service version 0.1.0 or later which implements proper input validation to reject tests with unexpected names at the validate JSON endpoint.
csaf-validator-lib version 0.1.0 or later
- Identify the current version of csaf-validator-lib in your project dependencies
- Update the dependency to version 0.1.0 or later using your package manager (e.g., npm install csaf-validator-lib@latest or specific version)
- Verify the upgrade by checking the installed package version
- Run existing tests to ensure the service still functions correctly after the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-47925 — 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-2022-47925 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