VulnerabilityPublished 21 Sep 2022Updated 27 May 2025

CVE-2022-28802: Code by Zapier · Incorrect Permissions

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 1.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 73% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Sep 2022
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

European organizations should ensure that all Code by Zapier instances are updated to versions released after August 17, 2022, where the vulnerability is patched. They should audit existing automation workflows to identify any that handle sensitive credentials or secrets and verify that these are properly isolated. Implement strict access controls and monitor user activities within Zapier accounts to detect anomalous behavior indicative of privilege escalation attempts. Where possible, segregate duties by limiting the number of users with access to Code by Zapier and enforce the principle of least privilege. Employ multi-factor authentication (MFA) on Zapier accounts to reduce the risk of account compromise. Additionally, organizations should consider encrypting sensitive data at rest and in transit within automation workflows and regularly review logs for suspicious code execution patterns. If feasible, sensitive credentials should be stored in dedicated secret management tools rather than directly in Zapier workflows. Finally, conduct security awareness training to inform users about the risks of privilege escalation and the importance of secure coding practices within automation platforms.

Description

Code by Zapier before 2022-08-17 allowed intra-account privilege escalation that included execution of Python or JavaScript code. In other words, Code by Zapier was providing a customer-controlled general-purpose virtual machine that unintentionally granted full access to all users of a company's account, but was supposed to enforce role-based access control within that company's account. Before 2022-08-17, a customer could have resolved this by (in effect) using a separate virtual machine for an application that held credentials - or other secrets - that weren't supposed to be shared among all of its employees. (Multiple accounts would have been needed to operate these independent virtual machines.)

Impact

For European organizations using Code by Zapier, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk to the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive business data and credentials. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to critical secrets such as API keys, authentication tokens, or internal configuration data, potentially enabling further lateral movement or data exfiltration within the organization. The availability of automation workflows could also be disrupted by malicious code execution. Given the collaborative nature of many European enterprises and the increasing reliance on automation platforms like Zapier, the risk of insider threats or compromised user accounts being leveraged to escalate privileges is significant. This could result in regulatory compliance violations under GDPR due to unauthorized data access, leading to reputational damage and financial penalties. Additionally, organizations in sectors with high automation adoption such as finance, manufacturing, and technology could face operational disruptions impacting business continuity.

Summary

CVE-2022-28802 is a high-severity vulnerability affecting the Code by Zapier platform prior to August 17, 2022. The vulnerability arises from an intra-account privilege escalation flaw that allowed users within the same company account to execute arbitrary Python or JavaScript code beyond their intended permissions. Code by Zapier provides a virtual machine environment for customers to run custom code as part of their automation workflows. However, due to improper enforcement of role-based access control (RBAC), the virtual machine environment was effectively shared across all users within a company's account. This meant that any user with access to Code by Zapier could potentially execute code with elevated privileges, gaining unauthorized access to sensitive credentials, secrets, or other confidential data belonging to other users within the same account. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-732 (Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource) and has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8, indicating a high level of severity. The CVSS vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) reflects that the vulnerability can be exploited remotely over the network with low attack complexity, requires low privileges but no user interaction, and impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability to a high degree. Although no known exploits are reported in the wild, the potential for damage is significant. Prior to the patch, mitigation involved isolating sensitive credentials or secrets by using separate accounts or virtual machines, which was operationally cumbersome. The vulnerability was addressed by Zapier on or after August 17, 2022, presumably by enforcing proper RBAC and isolating virtual machine environments per user or application context.

CWE-732Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
Implementation
When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user), and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
Signing Malicious Code (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2025, 02:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-732

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats