CVE-2022-48598
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 · uneditedA SQL injection vulnerability exists in the “reporter events type date” feature of the ScienceLogic SL1 that takes unsanitized user‐controlled input and passes it directly to a SQL query. This allows for the injection of arbitrary SQL before being executed against the database.
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 SQL injection vulnerability exists in ScienceLogic SL1's 'reporter events type date' feature. The application takes user-controlled input and passes it directly to a SQL query without sanitization or parameterization, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary SQL commands that are executed against the database.
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<= 11.1.2CVSS 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
- 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 if ScienceLogic SL1 is presentLocate SL1 installation directories or check system inventory for ScienceLogic SL1 softwareAffected if ScienceLogic SL1 is found on the system
-
Check installed SL1 versionUse the system version check command or review SL1 version file to determine the exact version numberAffected if Installed version is 11.1.2 or lower
-
Verify reporter events type date feature accessibilityIdentify if the 'reporter events type date' feature is enabled and accessible via the SL1 web interface or API endpointAffected if The feature is accessible and the system is running a vulnerable version (11.1.2 or lower)
-
Inspect web application logs for SQL injection attemptsReview SL1 web server logs for unusual SQL syntax, unexpected quotation marks, or SQL keywords in requests targeting the reporter events endpointAffected if Evidence of malicious SQL injection payloads exists in the logs for this feature
-
Check database query logs for anomaliesExamine database audit logs for unparameterized queries or unexpected SQL structures originating from the reporter events type date functionalityAffected if Unparameterized SQL queries are being executed by the application
A system is affected if it runs ScienceLogic SL1 version 11.1.2 or lower and has the reporter events type date feature accessible, particularly if SQL injection patterns appear in logs or unparameterized queries are observed.
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 parameterized queries (prepared statements) for all database operations in the affected feature, ensuring user input is never directly concatenated into SQL queries. Validate and sanitize all user inputs as an additional defense layer.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-48598 — 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-2022-48598 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