Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2022-30534 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Wwbn Avideo. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.6% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the aVideoEncoder chunkfile functionality of WWBN AVideo 11.6 and the development master branch at commit 3f7c0364. The flaw, tracked as CWE-78, permits arbitrary operating system command execution when a specially crafted HTTP request is processed by the affected component.
An authenticated attacker with low privileges can exploit the issue over the network by submitting a malicious request, resulting in full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability on the target system. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8.
Public references point to Talos Intelligence advisory TALOS-2022-1546 for technical details and to database migration scripts in the AVideo repository (updateDb.v12.0.sql) that address the affected code paths.
EPSS scores for the CVE have remained in the 0.12 range without a pronounced rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-52394
Vulnerability Data
An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the aVideoEncoder chunkfile functionality of WWBN AVideo 11.6 and dev master commit 3f7c0364. A specially-crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this…
more
vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI
Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation and sanitization of untrusted HTTP inputs to the chunkfile endpoint, blocking the crafted payloads that trigger CWE-78 OS command injection.
Restricts the low-privileged authenticated account so that even a successful command injection yields limited OS-level impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Mandates prompt application of the vendor-supplied database migration and code fixes that close the vulnerable aVideoEncoder paths described in the advisory.
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 require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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 and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.