CVE-2022-0543
Access Control in Redis
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2022-0543 is a critical-severity Missing Authorization (CWE-862) vulnerability in Debian Debian Linux. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.1% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2022-0543 is a Debian-specific Lua sandbox escape vulnerability in the redis persistent key-value database that stems from a packaging issue. The flaw permits an attacker to break out of the Lua environment and execute arbitrary code on the underlying system. It carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 10.0 and is tracked under CWE-862.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the issue over the network without user interaction. Successful exploitation grants full control of the affected redis instance and the host operating system, allowing arbitrary code execution with impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Debian addressed the vulnerability in DSA-5081 and the associated security announcement, with corresponding updates available through the package repositories. NetApp also published advisory NTAP-20220331-0004 describing affected products and recommended remediation steps. Public exploit code has been posted to Packet Storm, and the CVE maintains a high EPSS score with a recorded peak of 0.9744.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-15665
Vulnerability Data
It was discovered, that redis, a persistent key-value database, due to a packaging issue, is prone to a (Debian-specific) Lua sandbox escape, which could result in remote code execution.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 28 March 2022
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Requiring an access control policy ensures authorization checks are defined and applied for critical functions.
Reviews of access controls detect missing authorization checks on critical functions or resources.
Documenting permitted unauthenticated actions prevents missing authorization by making all exceptions explicit and subject to organizational review.
Requiring attribute association with information prevents authorization from being performed without necessary security or privacy context.
Mandating authorization prior to allowing remote connections addresses missing authorization for remote access.
Mandating authorization before wireless connections are allowed prevents missing authorization for wireless access.
The control requires authorization before allowing mobile device connections, directly mitigating missing authorization for system access.
Requiring approvals for account creation and specifying authorizations ensures authorization is not missing for system access.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Requiring formal authorization of every access request before rights are granted ensures that checks for required permissions are performed, preventing missing authorization checks from being introduced.
A.5.18's provisioning, review, revocation and activation steps (incl. owner approval, SoD, timely removal on role/termination change) directly stop exploitation of missing authorization checks by ensuring no actor receives or retains rights to resources they should not access; the bounded remainder is that it cannot stop missing-authorization defects inside the enforcement mechanism itself once rights have been granted (e.g. flawed code that ignores the rights table).
By requiring competent outsiders to verify that every function enforces the need-to-know principle, the control lowers the likelihood that missing authorization checks persist undetected.
A.5.8 integrates risk assessment, requirements elicitation and governance into the project lifecycle so that authorization needs can be identified and specified; it does not itself perform or enforce authorization checks, so the missing-authorization weakness can still be present and exploitable.
Security checkpoints and explicit authorization requirements in the design phase ensure that every sensitive function is paired with an access-control check, reducing missing-authorization defects.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (least privilege, default deny, security architecture integration, zero-trust never-trust/always-verify, dynamic access control) plus design reviews that directly specify and enforce authorization checks before access; this stops most missing-authorization cases from being exploitable, with a bounded remainder in non-architectural or legacy components where the principles were documented but not fully applied.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-862, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.