Cross-site Scripting (XSS)Weakness · CWE-79

CVE-2026-22322

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-03-18
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
A stored cross‑site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Link Aggregation configuration interface allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to create a trunk entry containing malicious HTML/JavaScript code. When the affected page is viewed, the injected script executes in the context of the victim’s browser, enabling unauthorized actions such as interface manipulation. The session cookie is secured by the httpOnly Flag. Therefore an attacker is not able to take over the session of an authenticated user.

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 confidence

A stored cross-site scripting vulnerability exists in the Link Aggregation (LAG/trunk) configuration interface. An unauthenticated remote attacker can inject malicious HTML/JavaScript code into a trunk entry. When administrators view the Link Aggregation configuration page, the stored payload executes in their browser context, enabling actions like interface manipulation. The httpOnly flag on session cookies prevents session hijacking but does not stop other XSS-based attacks.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and output encoding on all Link Aggregation configuration fields to neutralize script injection. Additionally, deploy a Content Security Policy (CSP) header to provide defense-in-depth against XSS attacks.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Link Aggregation feature is enabled
    Check system network settings or running configuration for active LAG/trunk interfaces. Look for LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) or static trunk groups in the network configuration.
    Affected if Link Aggregation or trunking is configured and active on the device
  2. Locate LAG configuration interface
    Access the web management UI or CLI for network devices. Navigate to the Link Aggregation, LAG, or Trunking configuration section. Identify the endpoint or page where trunk entries are created or edited.
    Affected if The LAG configuration interface is accessible (even without authentication for the initial injection)
  3. Inspect trunk entry input fields
    Examine the HTML form or API parameters used when adding a new trunk entry. Check the source code or API schema for the LAG configuration page for input fields such as trunk name, description, or member port lists.
    Affected if Input fields accept free-form text without apparent validation constraints
  4. Check for input validation on LAG fields
    Review application code or API logic that processes trunk entry submissions. Determine if server-side validation exists for HTML/script tags in the trunk name or description fields.
    Affected if No server-side input validation or sanitization is performed on LAG configuration fields
  5. Test for reflected output encoding
    Submit a benign test string (such as <script>alert(1)</script> or <img src=x onerror=alert(1)>) in a trunk entry field, then view the LAG configuration page. Inspect the page source to see if the payload is rendered as plain text or executed as HTML.
    Affected if The test payload is rendered as HTML/JavaScript and executes in the browser when the page is viewed

A user is affected if Link Aggregation is enabled and the LAG configuration interface accepts unsanitized input that is later rendered without output encoding when administrators view the configuration page.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation and output encoding on all Link Aggregation configuration fields to neutralize script injection. Additionally, deploy a Content Security Policy (CSP) header to provide defense-in-depth against XSS attacks.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
21.0 hours of engineering $3,680
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22322 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-22322 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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