CVE-2022-35086VulnerabilityPublished 20 Sep 2022Updated 28 May 2025

CVE-2022-35086: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
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: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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 20 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

Given the local attack vector and requirement for user interaction, mitigation should focus on limiting local access and controlling user privileges. Organizations should: 1) Restrict access to systems running SWFTools to trusted users only and enforce strict user authentication and authorization policies. 2) Monitor and audit local user activities to detect suspicious behavior that might lead to exploitation attempts. 3) Isolate systems running SWFTools from untrusted networks and users to reduce exposure. 4) Implement application whitelisting and endpoint protection to prevent execution of unauthorized code. 5) Regularly update and patch SWFTools or related components as vendor fixes become available. 6) Consider replacing or sandboxing SWFTools in critical environments to contain potential crashes. 7) Educate users about the risks of interacting with untrusted files or applications that might trigger the vulnerability.

Description

SWFTools commit 772e55a2 was discovered to contain a segmentation violation via /multiarch/memmove-vec-unaligned-erms.S.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential for denial of service conditions on systems running SWFTools or components that include the vulnerable memmove implementation. Since the attack requires local access and user interaction, the risk is somewhat limited to insider threats or scenarios where an attacker has already gained some level of access. However, in environments where SWFTools is used for document processing or PDF manipulation, such as publishing houses, government agencies, or media companies, exploitation could disrupt critical workflows. The lack of confidentiality or integrity impact reduces the risk of data breaches, but availability interruptions could affect business continuity. Organizations relying on automated document processing pipelines that incorporate SWFTools might experience service outages or crashes, impacting operational efficiency.

Summary

CVE-2022-35086 is a medium-severity vulnerability identified in SWFTools, specifically linked to a segmentation violation caused by the code in /multiarch/memmove-vec-unaligned-erms.S. This vulnerability is categorized under CWE-787, which refers to out-of-bounds write errors. The segmentation violation indicates that the software attempts to access memory outside the bounds of allocated buffers, potentially leading to application crashes or denial of service. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 5.5, reflecting a medium severity level. The attack vector is local (AV:L), meaning an attacker needs local access to the system to exploit the flaw. The attack complexity is low (AC:L), no privileges are required (PR:N), but user interaction is necessary (UI:R). The scope is unchanged (S:U), and the impact affects availability only (A:H), with no impact on confidentiality or integrity. No known exploits are reported in the wild, and no patches or vendor information are currently available. The vulnerability arises from unsafe memory operations in a low-level assembly routine related to memory movement, which can cause segmentation faults and disrupt service availability.

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 7 Jul 2025, 08:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats