Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2022-45699 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Apsystems Ecu-R Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.5% 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.
CVE-2022-45699 is a command-injection vulnerability in the administration interface of APSystems ECU-R firmware version 5203. The flaw, tracked under CWE-78 and CWE-94, resides in the handling of the timezone parameter and permits unauthenticated remote attackers to inject and execute operating-system commands.
An attacker with network access to the device can submit a crafted timezone value and obtain arbitrary command execution with root privileges, resulting in complete compromise of the affected ECU-R unit. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8, reflecting the absence of required authentication, privileges, or user interaction.
Public references consist of a detailed proof-of-concept repository and demonstration videos that illustrate remote unauthenticated exploitation; no vendor advisory or patch information is included in the supplied references. The CVE maintains a very high EPSS score (current 0.8995, peak 0.9079), indicating sustained exploitation interest after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-48558
Vulnerability Data
Command injection in the administration interface in APSystems ECU-R version 5203 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root using the timezone parameter.
- 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 the timezone parameter to block the command-injection payload before execution.
Enforces authentication and authorization on the administration interface so unauthenticated attackers cannot reach the vulnerable endpoint.
Limits the web-server or script process to non-root privileges, reducing the impact of successful command injection to something less than full device compromise.
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).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.