CVE-2022-35028VulnerabilityPublished 22 Sep 2022Updated 27 May 2025

CVE-2022-35028: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 59% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 22 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 2026-10-25.

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 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

To mitigate CVE-2022-35028, European organizations should first identify any use of OTFCC tools within their environments, including development, testing, and production systems. Since no official patches are currently available, organizations should consider the following specific actions: 1) Avoid processing untrusted or unauthenticated font files with OTFCC until a patch is released. 2) Implement strict input validation and sandboxing when handling font files to limit the impact of potential crashes. 3) Monitor and restrict user permissions to prevent unauthorized execution of font processing tools. 4) Employ application whitelisting and endpoint protection to detect abnormal crashes or behavior associated with otfccdump. 5) Engage with the OTFCC project or community to track patch releases or updates addressing this vulnerability. 6) For automated pipelines, introduce error handling and fallback mechanisms to prevent cascading failures if the tool crashes. 7) Educate users about the risks of opening or processing font files from untrusted sources, emphasizing the need for caution and verification.

Description

OTFCC commit 617837b was discovered to contain a segmentation violation via /release-x64/otfccdump+0x4fbbb6.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2022-35028 is the potential for denial of service in environments where OTFCC tools are used to process OpenType fonts. This could disrupt workflows in graphic design, publishing, or software development sectors that rely on font compilation or analysis. Although the vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, service interruptions could lead to operational delays and productivity losses. Organizations that integrate OTFCC into automated font processing pipelines or CI/CD systems may experience cascading failures if the vulnerability is triggered. Given the lack of known exploits and the requirement for user interaction, the risk of widespread exploitation is currently low. However, targeted attacks against organizations heavily dependent on font processing tools could leverage this vulnerability to disrupt services. Additionally, if the tool is used in security-sensitive environments or as part of font validation in document processing, denial of service could impact availability of critical services.

Summary

CVE-2022-35028 is a medium-severity vulnerability identified in the OTFCC project, specifically related to a segmentation violation occurring in the otfccdump binary at the offset +0x4fbbb6. OTFCC (OpenType Font C Compiler) is a tool used for compiling and dumping OpenType font files. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-787, which corresponds to out-of-bounds write errors, indicating that the issue arises from improper memory handling leading to a segmentation fault. The CVSS v3.1 score of 6.5 reflects a medium impact, with an attack vector of network (AV:N), low attack complexity (AC:L), no privileges required (PR:N), but requiring user interaction (UI:R). The impact is limited to availability (A:H), meaning the vulnerability can cause a denial of service by crashing the application but does not affect confidentiality or integrity. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild, and no patches or vendor information are provided, suggesting that this vulnerability may affect specific versions or forks of the OTFCC tool, but exact affected versions are not specified. The segmentation violation likely occurs when processing crafted or malformed font files, which could be delivered via email attachments or downloaded content, triggering a crash when the vulnerable tool processes the file. Since the vulnerability requires user interaction, exploitation would typically involve convincing a user to open or process a malicious font file using the vulnerable tool.

CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (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, 03:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats