CVE-2022-23134
Auth Bypass in Zabbix 5.4.0 – 5.4.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2022-23134 is a low-severity Improper Access Control (CWE-284) vulnerability in Zabbix Zabbix. Its CVSS base score is 3.7 (Low).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.1% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
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-2022-23134 is an improper access control vulnerability in the Zabbix Frontend component. After the initial setup process completes, certain steps within the setup.php file remain reachable by unauthenticated users instead of being limited to super-administrators, due to insufficient enforcement of authentication and authorization checks as indicated by the associated CWEs.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the flaw by bypassing step validation in setup.php and thereby modify the Zabbix Frontend configuration. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 3.7 reflecting the high attack complexity required despite the absence of required credentials.
Security advisories published by Debian, Fedora, and Zabbix reference patches and updated packages that restrict access to the affected setup steps. Organizations are advised to apply the fixes listed in the Zabbix support tracker and corresponding distribution announcements to restore proper access controls.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-28225
Vulnerability Data
After the initial setup process, some steps of setup.php file are reachable not only by super-administrators, but by unauthenticated users as well. Malicious actor can pass step checks and potentially change the configuration of Zabbix Frontend.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 22 February 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.
The awareness and training policy mandates training on access control practices, directly reducing the likelihood of improper access control weaknesses being introduced or exploited.
Training covers access control policies and the consequences of improper access grants or usage by users.
Security training teaches access control policies and enforcement, reducing improper access control implementations.
Provides capability to review session content, directly detecting violations of access control.
System audit review detects violations of access controls by identifying unauthorized access attempts.
Control assessments verify that access controls are implemented correctly and operating as intended, detecting improper access control before exploitation.
Requiring formal approval, documented controls, and responsibilities for inter-system exchanges directly enforces proper access control between systems.
Penetration testing simulates unauthorized access attempts, directly detecting and enabling remediation of improper access control weaknesses.
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.
A.5.1 only requires that an information security policy and topic-specific policies (including on access control) exist and are reviewed; it does not itself enforce, implement or act on any access restriction, so the weakness can still be exploited (per the owner's explicit rule that governance/dependency clauses score none on effect verbs).
A.5.15 directly mandates determining requirements, defining/implementing topic-specific access control policy+rules (with explicit references to 8.3, 5.16, 5.18), and enforcing authorized access while preventing unauthorized access, which squarely stops exploitation of most CWE-284 instances; the bounded remainder is the physical slice (explicitly delegated to 7.2-7.4) plus any second-order defects like path traversal that are not authorization decisions.
A.5.16's identity lifecycle (unique binding, timely disable/remove, no duplicates, oversight of shared/non-human) directly stops most improper access by ensuring the actor in an access decision is correctly identified and authorized; the bounded remainder is non-identity mechanisms in CWE-284 such as path traversal or CSRF that do not turn on actor identity at all.
A.5.17 directly mandates generation of non-guessable unique secrets, secure transmission, immediate change of defaults/temporary creds, strong password enforcement, no-reuse, and compromise response, which stops most improper-authentication exploits at source; the bounded remainder is non-password authentication methods and sufficiency-of-proof cases (e.g. IA-2/IA-5 enhancements) left to other controls.
A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, adjustment and timely revocation of both physical and logical access rights per business rules, segregation of duties and risk-evaluated changes/terminations; this stops most unauthorized-actor exploitation paths named by CWE-284, with a bounded remainder (e.g. path-traversal or CSRF cases that are not authorization decisions at all)
A.5.2 defines and assigns roles/responsibilities for protection of information and risk acceptance; it does not itself enforce any access decision and cannot stop exploitation of improper access control (per the owner's labeling rule: governance/dependency clauses do not score on prevent/mitigate verbs)
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.