CVE-2022-22947
RCE in Oracle Communications Cloud Native Core Network Repository Function 1.15.0 … 22.2.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2022-22947 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Oracle Communications Cloud Native Core Network Repository Function. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); 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-2022-22947 is a code injection vulnerability affecting Spring Cloud Gateway versions prior to 3.1.1 and 3.0.7. It arises when the Gateway Actuator endpoint is enabled, exposed, and left unsecured, allowing specially crafted requests to inject and execute arbitrary code due to improper handling of input in expression language evaluation (CWE-94 and CWE-917).
A remote attacker with no authentication can send a malicious HTTP request to the exposed actuator endpoint and achieve arbitrary remote code execution on the host with full confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact, as reflected in the CVSS 10.0 score.
Advisories from VMware Tanzu and Oracle list the fixed versions and urge operators to upgrade Spring Cloud Gateway to 3.1.1 or later (or 3.0.7 or later) while ensuring the actuator endpoint is not publicly reachable without proper access controls.
The EPSS score has reached a peak of 0.9755 with a current value of 0.9446, indicating sustained high exploitation interest after disclosure. Public proof-of-concept exploits have been posted to Packet Storm.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-1288
Vulnerability Data
In spring cloud gateway versions prior to 3.1.1+ and 3.0.7+ , applications are vulnerable to a code injection attack when the Gateway Actuator endpoint is enabled, exposed and unsecured. A remote attacker could make a maliciously crafted request that could…
more
allow arbitrary remote execution on the remote host.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 16 May 2022
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2V1.3.5V4.3.1
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.
Makes persistent code injection into loaded programs impossible when the executable image itself resides on hardware-protected read-only media.
Dynamically generated code can be produced and executed inside the isolated chamber, preventing host compromise from code-injection payloads.
Validates inputs used in dynamic code generation to block injected directives.
Directly prevents execution of attacker-supplied code written into data memory regions.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect EL injection but does not itself implement the fix.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent expression-language injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including EL injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.