CVE-2022-35621VulnerabilityPublished 21 Sep 2022Updated 28 May 2025

CVE-2022-35621: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 58% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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 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

European organizations should first identify whether they utilize the EvohClaimable contract or any derivative smart contracts containing this vulnerability. Since no official patches are listed, organizations should consider redeploying updated smart contracts with corrected access control logic, ensuring that only authorized parties can initiate NFT transfers. Implementing multi-signature wallets or role-based access control within smart contracts can add layers of security. Regular smart contract audits by reputable security firms are recommended to detect similar vulnerabilities. Monitoring blockchain transactions for anomalous NFT transfers can help detect exploitation attempts early. Organizations should also educate users about potential risks and establish incident response plans specific to blockchain asset compromise. Where possible, migrating NFTs to more secure contract implementations or platforms with proven security track records can reduce exposure. Finally, engaging with the broader blockchain community to share threat intelligence and mitigation strategies can improve collective defense.

Description

Access control vulnerability in Evoh NFT EvohClaimable contract with sha256 hash code fa2084d5abca91a62ed1d2f1cad3ec318e6a9a2d7f1510a00d898737b05f48ae allows remote attackers to execute fraudulent NFT transfers.

Impact

For European organizations involved in NFT creation, trading, or custody, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of their digital asset holdings. Fraudulent transfers could result in financial losses, reputational damage, and legal complications, especially under stringent EU regulations such as GDPR and the upcoming Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) that emphasize security and operational integrity. Organizations relying on the EvohClaimable contract or derivatives thereof may face unauthorized asset transfers, undermining customer trust and potentially causing cascading effects in marketplaces and secondary trading platforms. The lack of confidentiality impact reduces risk of data leakage, but the integrity compromise directly affects asset ownership and transactional trust. Given the decentralized and immutable nature of blockchain, remediation after exploitation can be challenging, emphasizing the importance of proactive mitigation. Additionally, the medium severity score suggests that while exploitation is feasible without privileges or user interaction, the impact is limited to integrity and does not affect availability or confidentiality.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/MacherCS/CVE_Evoh_Contract (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 09:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats