Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2022-47523 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Zohocorp Manageengine Access Manager Plus. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked in the top 0.7% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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 Access Manager Plus before version 4309, Password Manager Pro before 12210, and PAM360 before 5801 contain a SQL injection vulnerability tracked as CVE-2022-47523. The issue is also associated with CWE-89 and CWE-79 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 exploit the flaw and obtain full read, write, and disruption capabilities over the affected installation. The same vector may additionally enable cross-site scripting behavior consistent with the listed CWEs.
Vendor advisories published at https://www.manageengine.com/privileged-session-management/advisory/cve-2022-47523.html direct customers to apply the corrected releases (Access Manager Plus 4309, Password Manager Pro 12210, and PAM360 5801) to eliminate the injection paths. The associated EPSS score reached a peak of 0.5828 before receding to its current value of 0.4555.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-50284
Vulnerability Data
Zoho ManageEngine Access Manager Plus before 4309, Password Manager Pro before 12210, and PAM360 before 5801 are vulnerable to SQL Injection.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2V6.2.5
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Penetration testing submits XSS payloads to web applications, detecting cross-site scripting flaws for subsequent remediation.
Validates web inputs to reject script-related content that could produce XSS.
Output validation against expected content can reject or sanitize script content in generated web pages, reducing XSS exploitability.
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.
Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).
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.