BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2022-49518High confidence

ASoC: SOF: ipc3-topology: Correct get_control_data for non bytes payload

Linux · Linux

7.1HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 51 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityHighOperational priority:Medium, lowered one band.downgradedsince 15 Aug 2026

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
  • EPSS is 0.25% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
  • Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
  • Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs Linux Linux and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: As exposure requiresRemediation target: Within 365 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Cross-source reconciliation

Remediation availability differs by product scope

Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 51 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Distribution package intelligence

Release-specific package status

Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.

5 package states
Package result overrides the generic status

BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.

Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Distribution releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Debian trixietrixie · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.5.18.5-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian bookwormbookworm · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.5.18.5-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian forkyforky · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.5.18.5-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian sidsid · sourcelinuxVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.5.18.5-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-raspi-realtimeAffected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
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-2022-49518 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitykernel: ASoC: SOF: ipc3-topology: Correct get_control_data for non bytes payload
50 known affected

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

  • bpftool as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-abi-stablelists as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-abi-whitelists as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-core as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-cross-headers as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-debug as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-debug-core as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-debug-devel as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-debug-modules as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-debug-modules-extra as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
  • kernel-debug-modules-internal as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ASoC: SOF: ipc3-topology: Correct get_control_data for non bytes payload It is possible to craft a topology where sof_get_control_data() would do out of bounds access because it expects that it is only called when the payload is bytes type. Confusingly it also handles other types of controls, but the payload parsing implementation is only valid for bytes. Fix the code to count the non bytes controls and instead of storing a pointer to sof_abi_hdr in sof_widget_data (which is only valid for bytes), store the pointer to the data itself and add a new member to save the size of the data. In case of non bytes controls we store the pointer to the chanv itself, which is just an array of values at the end. In case of bytes control, drop the wrong cdata->data (wdata[i].pdata) check against NULL since it is incorrect and invalid in this context. The data is pointing to the end of cdata struct, so it should never be null.
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.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

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-2022-54711

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 actionPatch only the product branches with a verified fix

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 51 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
01

What, why and how

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ASoC: SOF: ipc3-topology: Correct get_control_data for non bytes payload It is possible to craft a topology where sof_get_control_data() would do out of bounds access because it expects that it is only called when the payload is bytes type. Confusingly it also handles other types of controls, but the payload parsing implementation is only valid for bytes. Fix the code to count the non bytes controls and instead of storing a pointer to sof_abi_hdr in sof_widget_data (which is only valid for bytes), store the pointer to the data itself and add a new member to save the size of the data. In case of non bytes controls we store the pointer to the chanv itself, which is just an array of values at the end. In case of bytes control, drop the wrong cdata->data (wdata[i].pdata) check against NULL since it is incorrect and invalid in this context. The data is pointing to the end of cdata struct, so it should never be null.

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ASoC: SOF: ipc3-topology: Correct get_control_data for non bytes payload It is possible to craft a topology where sof_get_control_data() would do out of bounds access because it expects that it is only called when the payload is bytes type. Confusingly it also handles other types of controls, but the payload parsing implementation is only valid for bytes. Fix the code to count the non bytes controls and instead of storing a pointer to sof_abi_hdr in sof_widget_data (which is only valid for bytes), store the pointer to the data itself and add a new member to save the size of the data. In case of non bytes controls we store the pointer to the chanv itself, which is just an array of values at the end. In case of bytes control, drop the wrong cdata->data (wdata[i].pdata) check against NULL since it is incorrect and invalid in this context. The data is pointing to the end of cdata struct, so it should never be null.

Why

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ASoC: SOF: ipc3-topology: Correct get_control_data for non bytes payload It is possible to craft a topology where sof_get_control_data() would do out of bounds access because it expects that it is only called when the payload is bytes type. Confusingly it also handles other types of controls, but the payload parsing implementation is only valid for bytes. Fix the code to count the non bytes controls and instead of storing a pointer to sof_abi_hdr in sof_widget_data (which is only valid for bytes), store the pointer to the data itself and add a new member to save the size of the data. In case of non bytes controls we store the pointer to the chanv itself, which is just an array of values at the end. In case of bytes control, drop the wrong cdata->data (wdata[i].pdata) check against NULL since it is incorrect and invalid in this context. The data is pointing to the end of cdata struct, so it should never be null.

Why

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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
local access → Out-of-bounds Read → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
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-125 ↗

CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read. The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

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

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

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
CWE-125
A

Official authority intelligence

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

Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20250305Security Bulletin 5 March 2025

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 5 March 2025, published on 5 March 2025. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0326Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

d?id=CVE-2022-49420 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49465 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49465 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49469 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49469 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49471 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49471 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49476 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49476 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49484 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49484 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49496 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49496 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49504 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49504 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49516 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49516 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49518 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49518 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49528 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49528 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49529 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49529 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49531 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49531 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49533 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49533 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49534 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49534 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49539 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49539 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49543 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49543 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49547 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0316Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

d?id=CVE-2022-49420 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49465 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49465 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49469 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49469 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49471 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49471 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49476 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49476 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49484 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49484 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49496 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49496 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49504 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49504 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49516 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49516 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49518 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49518 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49528 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49528 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49529 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49529 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49531 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49531 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49533 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49533 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49534 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49534 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49539 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49539 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49543 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49543 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49547 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-1057Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

d?id=CVE-2022-49476 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49481 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49481 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49486 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49486 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49492 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49492 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49498 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49498 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49503 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49503 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49508 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49508 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49511 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49511 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49515 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49515 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49518 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49518 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49519 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49519 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49520 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49520 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49521 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49521 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49523 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49523 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49526 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49526 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49532 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49532 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49538 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49538 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49545 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0336Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2022-49509 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49510 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49510 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49511 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49511 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49512 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49512 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49513 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49513 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49514 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49514 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49515 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49515 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49516 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49516 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49517 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49517 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49518 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49518 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49519 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49519 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49520 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49520 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49521 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49521 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49522 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49522 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49523 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49523 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49524 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49524 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49525 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49525 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49526 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0307Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2022-49508 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49509 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49509 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49510 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49510 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49511 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49511 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49512 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49512 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49514 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49514 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49515 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49515 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49516 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49516 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49517 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49517 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49518 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49518 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49519 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49519 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49520 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49520 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49521 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49521 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49522 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49522 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49523 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49523 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49524 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49524 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49525 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49525 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49526 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2022-026570Linux の Linux Kernel における境界外読み取りに関する脆弱性

Linux の Linux Kernel には、境界外読み取りに関する脆弱性が存在します。

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 availability varies by product
Affected
Fixed
Linux: < 5.14, 5.18.3 ≤ 5.18.*, 5.19 ≤ *
Action
Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 26 Feb 2025 · Last source change 15 Aug 2026, 12:22 UTC · CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
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-2022-54711
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD enriched

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

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    7006d20e5e9d25c079a82e2bc0ea7e292fdea6e6 < 896b03bb7c7010042786cfae2115083d4c241dd3; 7006d20e5e9d25c079a82e2bc0ea7e292fdea6e6 < a962890a5a3cce903ff7c7a19fadee63ed9efdc7; 5.18 · Fixed: < 5.18; 5.18.3 ≤ 5.18.*; 5.19 ≤ *
    After
    d29d41e28eea65493395dda0b6d1fff23ca374f4 < 896b03bb7c7010042786cfae2115083d4c241dd3; d29d41e28eea65493395dda0b6d1fff23ca374f4 < a962890a5a3cce903ff7c7a19fadee63ed9efdc7; 5.14 · Fixed: < 5.14; 5.18.3 ≤ 5.18.*; 5.19 ≤ *
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
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-2022-49518 · cve.blacktree.nl