BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2022
CVE-2022-29153High confidence

n/a — Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

n/a · n/a

7.5HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
Direct vendor intelligence

Authoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories

Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.

1 current
CVE-2022-29153 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · status not statedRed Hat Product Securityconsul: Hashicorp Consul HTTP health check endpoints returning an HTTP redirect may be abused as SSRF vector
5 known affected

The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.

  • openshift-logging/logging-loki-rhel9 as a component of Logging Subsystem for Red Hat OpenShift
  • openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-manager-rhel8-operator as a component of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4
  • openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-operator-precache-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4
  • odf4/odf-multicluster-rhel8-operator as a component of Red Hat Openshift Data Foundation 4
  • odf4/odr-rhel9-operator as a component of Red Hat Openshift Data Foundation 4
Summary
A flaw was found in the Consul and Consul Enterprise (“Consul”) where HTTP health check endpoints return an HTTP redirect, which can be abused as a vector for server-side request forgery (SSRF).
Remediation
Affected
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2022-1808

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
01

What, why and how

HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise up to 1.9.16, 1.10.9, and 1.11.4 may allow server side request forgery when the Consul client agent follows redirects returned by HTTP health check endpoints. Fixed in 1.9.17, 1.10.10, and 1.11.5.

What

HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise up to 1.9.16, 1.10.9, and 1.11.4 may allow server side request forgery when the Consul client agent follows redirects returned by HTTP health check endpoints. Fixed in 1.9.17, 1.10.10, and 1.11.5.

Why

The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise up to 1.9.16, 1.10.9, and 1.11.4 may allow server side request forgery when the Consul client agent follows redirects returned by HTTP health check endpoints. Fixed in 1.9.17, 1.10.10, and 1.11.5.

Why

The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
a network path → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-918 ↗

CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-918
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

BSI · German · WID-SEC-W-2022-1375JFrog Artifactory: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in JFrog Artifactory ausnutzen, um seine Privilegien zu erweitern, beliebigen Code auszuführen, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand auszulösen.

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0279Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits IBM

port/pages/node/7230024 Référence CVE CVE-2018-20225 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2018-20225 Référence CVE CVE-2018-6341 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2018-6341 Référence CVE CVE-2019-11253 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2019-11253 Référence CVE CVE-2020-13844 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2020-13844 Référence CVE CVE-2021-23337 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-23337 Référence CVE CVE-2021-4204 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-4204 Référence CVE CVE-2021-44906 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-44906 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47495 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47495 Référence CVE CVE-2022-29153 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-29153 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48706 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48706 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48890 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48890 Référence CVE CVE-2022-48921 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48921 Référence CVE CVE-2023-43804 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-43804 Référence CVE CVE-2023-44487 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-44487 Référence CVE CVE-2023-45142 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-45142 Référence CVE CVE-2023-45857 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-45857 Référence CVE CVE-2023-52455 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Fix not verified
Affected
openshift-logging/logging-loki-rhel9 as a component of Logging Subsystem for Red Hat OpenShift; openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-manager-rhel8-operator as a component of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4; openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-operator-precache-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4; odf4/odf-multicluster-rhel8-operator as a component of Red Hat Openshift Data Foundation 4; odf4/odr-rhel9-operator as a component of Red Hat Openshift Data Foundation 4
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 19 Apr 2022 · Last source change 3 Aug 2024, 06:10 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-1808
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-1808↗Vendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Vendor advisory↗Vendor advisory↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2022-29153 · cve.blacktree.nl