Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2022-44456 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Contec Conprosys Hmi System. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.7% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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.
CVE-2022-44456 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) affecting CONPROSYS HMI System (CHS) version 3.4.4 and earlier. The flaw resides in the handling of specially crafted requests sent to the server component, enabling unauthenticated remote command execution with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction.
An attacker positioned on the network can submit malicious requests to the affected HMI system and obtain arbitrary operating-system command execution on the underlying server. Successful exploitation grants full control over confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the host, consistent with the high impact metrics in the CVSS vector.
Vendor advisories published by CONTEC and coordinated through JVN recommend applying the security updates referenced in the linked PDFs and product pages; the advisories address the command-injection issue in CHS releases after 3.4.4.
EPSS for this CVE rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.4139 before settling at the current value of 0.2519, indicating that exploitation interest increased after public disclosure and that the vulnerability merits renewed attention.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-47399
Vulnerability Data
CONPROSYS HMI System (CHS) Ver.3.4.4?and earlier allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute an arbitrary OS command on the server where the product is running by sending a specially crafted request.
- 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 of all inputs to the HMI server, blocking the specially crafted requests that trigger OS command injection (CWE-78).
Enforces that only authenticated and authorized subjects may invoke server functions, eliminating the unauthenticated remote execution path described in the CVE.
Restricts network traffic to the HMI server, limiting the attack surface for the remote unauthenticated command-injection requests.
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.