Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2022-43672 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Zohocorp Manageengine Access Manager Plus. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.8% 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.
Zoho ManageEngine Password Manager Pro before version 12122, PAM360 before 5711, and Access Manager Plus before 4306 are affected by a SQL injection vulnerability tracked as CVE-2022-43672 and assigned CWE-89. The flaw resides in a different software component than the related CVE-2022-43671 and carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can supply crafted input to trigger the injection, resulting in full read, write, and delete access to the underlying database and thereby full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the password-management system.
Vendor advisories published at https://www.manageengine.com/products/passwordmanagerpro/advisory/cve-2022-43672.html direct customers to apply the listed fixed builds for each product.
The associated EPSS score currently stands at 0.4331 after reaching a peak of 0.5195, indicating sustained exploitation interest well after the 2022 disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-46666
Vulnerability Data
Zoho ManageEngine Password Manager Pro before 12122, PAM360 before 5711, and Access Manager Plus before 4306 allow SQL Injection (in a different software component relative to CVE-2022-43671.
- 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
Requires validation and sanitization of all untrusted input, directly blocking the crafted SQL payloads that exploit this unauthenticated injection flaw.
Mandates prompt application of vendor patches (builds 12122/5711/4306) that eliminate the SQL-injection defect in the affected ManageEngine components.
Requires logging of application and database events so that anomalous queries or unauthorized data access attempts stemming from successful injection can be identified.
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 target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.
Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.
Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.
Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.