VulnerabilityPublished 9 Oct 2022Updated 9 Jun 2025

CVE-2022-42011: D-Bus · Improper Validation of Array Index

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 1.16.0 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 1.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 77% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.16.0, 1.15.2, 1.14.4 +2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 9 Oct 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n/a n/a	Affected <1.12.24 >=1.13.0 <1.14.0 <1.14.4 >=1.15.0 <1.16.0 <1.15.2	Fixed in 1.12.24 1.14.0 1.14.4 1.16.0 1.15.2

AI-suggested

Apply patches: Upgrade D-Bus to versions 1.12.24 or later, 1.14.4 or later, or 1.15.2 or later as appropriate for your distribution. Monitor vendor advisories for backported fixes if using long-term support distributions.
Restrict authenticated access: Limit the number of users and services with authenticated access to systems running vulnerable D-Bus versions. Use strong authentication mechanisms and network segmentation to reduce exposure.
Monitor logs: Implement monitoring for unusual dbus-daemon crashes or IPC failures that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Harden IPC usage: Review and restrict which applications and users can send messages over D-Bus, using policies or access control mechanisms to minimize attack surface.
Incident response readiness: Prepare to quickly restart affected services or systems in case of a DoS event and have contingency plans to maintain service availability.
Use security tools: Employ runtime protection or anomaly detection tools that can identify malformed IPC messages or abnormal process behavior related to dbus-daemon.

Description

An issue was discovered in D-Bus before 1.12.24, 1.13.x and 1.14.x before 1.14.4, and 1.15.x before 1.15.2. An authenticated attacker can cause dbus-daemon and other programs that use libdbus to crash when receiving a message where an array length is inconsistent with the size of the element type.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2022-42011 is the potential for denial of service on Linux systems that rely on vulnerable versions of D-Bus. Since D-Bus is a core component in many Linux distributions, including those used in enterprise servers, desktops, and embedded devices, exploitation could disrupt critical services and applications that depend on IPC. This could affect operational continuity in sectors such as finance, manufacturing, telecommunications, and public administration, where Linux systems are prevalent. Although the vulnerability does not compromise data confidentiality or integrity, the availability impact could lead to downtime, loss of productivity, and increased operational costs. Organizations with multi-user environments or those exposing services to authenticated users (e.g., via SSH or other remote access) are at higher risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat levels, but the medium severity score and ease of triggering a crash warrant timely patching and mitigation to prevent potential DoS attacks.

CWE-129Improper Validation of Array Index (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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)
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 20:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-129

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats