Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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-2022-1386 is a critical-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Fusion Builder Project Fusion Builder. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 0.6% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV 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.
The Fusion Builder WordPress plugin before version 3.6.2, a component of the Avada theme, contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability (CWE-918). The plugin fails to validate a parameter within its forms, allowing arbitrary HTTP requests to be initiated from the server; responses from those requests are then reflected in the application output.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can exploit the flaw over the network without user interaction to reach internal hosts that would otherwise be protected by firewalls or network segmentation. Successful exploitation can result in disclosure of sensitive information, modification of data, or disruption of services, consistent with the CVSS 9.8 rating.
Public advisories from ThemeFusion and WPScan indicate that the issue is resolved in Avada 7.6.2 (which bundles Fusion Builder 3.6.2); site owners are advised to apply the update promptly. The associated EPSS score has remained at a sustained high of 0.9361 with no material post-disclosure increase reported.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-24703
Vulnerability Data
The Fusion Builder WordPress plugin before 3.6.2, used in the Avada theme, does not validate a parameter in its forms which could be used to initiate arbitrary HTTP requests. The data returned is then reflected back in the application's response.…
more
This could be used to interact with hosts on the server's local network bypassing firewalls and access control measures.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
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.
Penetration testing attempts server-side requests to internal resources, identifying SSRF weaknesses for remediation.
Outbound connections to external resources can be monitored and limited at the boundary, reducing SSRF impact.
Validates server-side URLs and resource references to block SSRF attempts.
Detects server-side request forgery through monitoring of unexpected outbound connections.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
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.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.