Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2022-40022 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Microchip Syncserver S650 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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.
Microchip Technology (Microsemi) SyncServer S650 contains a command injection vulnerability tracked as CVE-2022-40022 and assigned CWE-77. The flaw received a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8, reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, and no requirements for authentication or user interaction. The affected device is a network time server used for precise timing and synchronization in enterprise and telecommunications environments.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can exploit the issue over the network to inject and execute arbitrary operating-system commands. Successful exploitation grants full control over the device, enabling complete compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability without any prior credentials or user assistance.
Public references include an exploit proof-of-concept published on Packet Storm and a detailed advisory on Securifera, confirming unauthenticated remote command execution is achievable. The EPSS score currently stands at 0.9078 with a recorded peak of 0.9084, indicating sustained high exploitation probability since disclosure. No vendor patch or mitigation guidance is described in the supplied references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-43347
Vulnerability Data
Microchip Technology (Microsemi) SyncServer S650 was discovered to contain a command injection 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
Input validation directly blocks the arbitrary OS command injection that unauthenticated attackers exploit over the network.
Enforces access-control decisions before any command processing occurs, eliminating the unauthenticated remote execution path.
Boundary-protection mechanisms can restrict network reachability to the SyncServer, reducing the attack surface for remote command injection.
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 input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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 require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.