CVE-2022-35029VulnerabilityPublished 22 Sep 2022Updated 27 May 2025

CVE-2022-35029: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 62% 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 2026-10-26.

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

Organizations should first identify any usage of OTFCC or related font compilation tools within their environments, particularly in development, design, or document processing workflows. Since no official patches are currently listed, users should monitor the official OTFCC repository or related security advisories for updates or patches addressing this vulnerability. As a temporary mitigation, restrict processing of untrusted or unauthenticated font files through OTFCC or related tools. Implement strict input validation and sandboxing when handling font files to limit the impact of potential crashes. Additionally, consider isolating font compilation processes in containerized or virtualized environments to prevent broader system impact. Educate users about the risk of processing untrusted font files and enforce policies limiting user interaction with unknown fonts. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to quickly recover from any availability disruptions caused by exploitation attempts.

Description

OTFCC commit 617837b was discovered to contain a segmentation violation via /release-x64/otfccdump+0x6babea.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2022-35029 lies in potential denial-of-service conditions caused by application crashes when processing malicious or malformed font files using the vulnerable OTFCC tool. While there is no direct confidentiality or integrity compromise indicated, disruption of font compilation or processing workflows could affect organizations relying on automated font handling, such as graphic design firms, publishing houses, or software developers. If exploited in a targeted manner, attackers could cause service interruptions or degrade availability of font-related services or pipelines. The requirement for user interaction reduces the likelihood of widespread automated exploitation but does not eliminate risk in environments where users process untrusted font files. Given the absence of known exploits, the immediate threat level is moderate, but organizations should remain vigilant, especially those integrating OTFCC in their toolchains or using software that bundles it.

Summary

CVE-2022-35029 is a vulnerability identified in the OTFCC project, specifically linked to a segmentation violation occurring in the otfccdump binary at the offset +0x6babea. OTFCC (OpenType Font C Compiler) is a tool used for compiling and manipulating OpenType font files. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-787, which corresponds to out-of-bounds write errors, typically leading to memory corruption. The segmentation violation indicates that the program attempts to access memory regions improperly, which can cause crashes or potentially be exploited to execute arbitrary code. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 6.5 (medium severity), with the vector indicating the attack vector is network-based (AV:N), low attack complexity (AC:L), no privileges required (PR:N), but requires user interaction (UI:R). The impact is limited to availability (A:H), with no confidentiality or integrity impact reported. No known exploits are currently in the wild, and no patches or vendor information are provided, suggesting this vulnerability may be in an open-source or less widely commercialized tool. The lack of affected version details and vendor/project information limits precise scope identification, but given the nature of OTFCC, the vulnerability likely affects environments where font compilation or manipulation is performed, potentially in software development, font design, or document processing pipelines.

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, 03:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats