CVE-2022-24682
Synacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite 8.8.0 – 8.8.15
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/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-2022-24682 is a medium-severity Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output (CWE-116) vulnerability in Synacor Zimbra Collaboration Suite. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked in the top 2% 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.
The vulnerability is an improper input neutralization issue (CWE-116) in the Calendar feature of Zimbra Collaboration Suite 8.8.x releases prior to 8.8.15 patch 30 (update 1). An attacker can supply HTML containing executable JavaScript inside element attributes; the markup is not escaped before being rendered, resulting in arbitrary script injection into the document served to users.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the flaw by delivering a malicious calendar item or invitation that triggers the injection when a victim views the calendar. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to execute JavaScript in the context of the victim's Zimbra session, enabling theft of session data or other actions within the changed security context reflected in the CVSS scoring.
Zimbra published a hotfix on 5 February 2022 and corresponding patch 30 (update 1) that addresses the zero-day. Administrators are directed to apply the update immediately; the vendor's security center and release notes list the fixed builds and advise monitoring the Zimbra Security Advisories page for further guidance.
The vulnerability was exploited in the wild beginning in December 2021 as part of Operation Emailthief, with Volexity reporting active campaigns targeting Zimbra deployments prior to public disclosure. The EPSS score reached a peak of 0.8863 with no material post-disclosure rise indicated.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-29554
Vulnerability Data
An issue was discovered in the Calendar feature in Zimbra Collaboration Suite 8.8.x before 8.8.15 patch 30 (update 1), as exploited in the wild starting in December 2021. An attacker could place HTML containing executable JavaScript inside element attributes. This…
more
markup becomes unescaped, causing arbitrary markup to be injected into the document.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 25 February 2022
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.2.1V1.2.3
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.
Validating that output matches expected content directly mitigates failures to properly encode or escape data for its destination context.
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 SDLC practices directly require proper output encoding to prevent injection and message malformation.
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.
Secure coding standards explicitly require correct output encoding and escaping to preserve message structure.
Security testing can detect missing or incorrect encoding but does not itself implement the control.
Secure development life cycle mandates output encoding/escaping practices that directly prevent improper encoding.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe output handling and encoding.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of missing encoding but do not prescribe the actual technique.