CVE-2022-35088VulnerabilityPublished 20 Sep 2022Updated 28 May 2025

CVE-2022-35088: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 2026-10-26.

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

To mitigate CVE-2022-35088, European organizations should first inventory their systems to identify any installations of SWFTools, particularly versions including the vulnerable commit. Since no official patches are currently linked, organizations should consider the following specific actions: 1) Disable or restrict access to SWFTools utilities, especially gif2swf, to trusted users only. 2) Implement strict input validation and scanning of GIF files before processing to detect malformed or suspicious files that could trigger the overflow. 3) Employ application sandboxing or containerization to isolate SWFTools processes, limiting the impact of potential crashes or exploits. 4) Monitor logs and system behavior for crashes or anomalies related to SWFTools usage. 5) Engage with the open-source community or maintainers to track the release of patches or updates addressing this vulnerability. 6) If feasible, replace SWFTools with alternative, actively maintained tools that do not exhibit this vulnerability. 7) Educate users about the risks of processing untrusted GIF files and enforce policies to minimize such exposure.

Description

SWFTools commit 772e55a2 was discovered to contain a heap buffer-overflow via getGifDelayTime at /home/bupt/Desktop/swftools/src/src/gif2swf.c.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2022-35088 depends on the extent to which SWFTools is used within their IT environments. While SWFTools is not a mainstream commercial product, it may still be present in niche applications, legacy systems, or specialized media processing pipelines. Exploitation could lead to denial of service conditions, disrupting workflows that rely on SWFTools for GIF to SWF conversion or related tasks. This could affect media companies, digital archives, or any organization maintaining legacy Flash content. The requirement for local access and user interaction limits remote exploitation, reducing the risk of widespread attacks. However, insider threats or compromised user accounts could leverage this vulnerability to cause service interruptions. Given the medium severity and lack of known exploits, the immediate risk is moderate, but organizations should assess their exposure, especially if SWFTools is integrated into critical processes.

Summary

CVE-2022-35088 is a medium-severity heap buffer overflow vulnerability identified in the SWFTools project, specifically within the function getGifDelayTime located in the gif2swf.c source file. The vulnerability arises from improper handling of GIF image data, leading to a heap buffer overflow condition. This flaw is triggered when processing crafted GIF files, which can cause the application to overwrite memory beyond the allocated buffer on the heap. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), indicating that the software writes data outside the boundaries of allocated memory. Exploitation requires local access (AV:L) and user interaction (UI:R), but no privileges (PR:N) are necessary. The impact is primarily on availability (A:H), as the overflow can cause application crashes or denial of service. There is no indication that confidentiality or integrity are affected. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 5.5, reflecting a medium severity level. No known exploits are currently in the wild, and no patches or vendor advisories have been linked, suggesting that mitigation may require manual code review or applying community patches if available. The vulnerability affects SWFTools, a collection of utilities for handling SWF files, which may be used in legacy systems or specialized workflows involving Flash content conversion or manipulation.

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