CVE-2022-4993
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2022-4993 is a critical-severity Unsafe Reflection (CWE-470) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Template Injection (T1221); ranked at the 40th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-56018
Vulnerability Data
HTML::FormHandler versions through 0.40068 for Perl allow attacker selected method dispatch and resource exhaustion because _apply_actions and add_error use error message text built from request data as a Locale::Maketext bracket notation template. add_error hands its first argument to the language…
more
handle as the Locale::Maketext message key, and the default handle's lexicon sets `_AUTO`, so a string that is not a lexicon entry is compiled as a bracket notation template instead of being looked up. In a bracket group the first token names a method called on the language handle and the remaining tokens are its arguments. Three kinds of text the library did not author reach that position. _apply_actions installs a `$SIG{__WARN__}` handler that stores the warning text in `$error_message`, and a captured warning survives a successful action, so a field carrying a numeric transform turns `Argument "[sprintf,%50000000d,0]" isn't numeric` into the template; a warning quotes the submitted value verbatim, so the group is well formed and dispatches. `$error_message ||= $tobj->validate($new_value)` takes a type constraint's own failure message, which renders the rejected value through a partial dumper in bracket and comma form (Devel::PartialDump when Moose can load it, Type::Tiny's own dumper always), so a field with `apply => [ Str ]` given a parameter sent more than once, which arrives as an array, gets `Reference ["a","b"] did not pass type constraint "Str"` as its template, from a request that carries no bracket character of its own. A coercion or transform exception reaches it the same way. Beyond those, a validator whose message contains the field value puts that value in the template directly, and add_error replaces the message list with the contents of an arrayref first argument (`@message = @{$message[0]} if ref $message[0] eq 'ARRAY'`), so a value arriving as an array fills the argument slots from the same request as well. A malformed group such as `[0]` makes the compile croak, and HTML::FormHandler::I18N::maketext and add_error each re-raise that as a die, so process() throws. A well formed group naming sprintf reaches CORE::sprintf with an attacker chosen field width. Any caller that applies a type constraint or a transform to an untrusted field, or whose validator passes an untrusted field value to add_error, can be made to throw an unhandled exception out of process(), or to allocate an arbitrary amount of memory in one request, and an application whose language handle subclass defines side effecting public methods makes those callable with attacker chosen arguments. The dumped type constraint message is bounded to the exception, because both dumpers quote non-numeric elements so the method slot is never an attacker chosen name. The built-in messages pass fixed templates with the value in an argument slot, where it stays inert, and the built-in field types attach explicit message callbacks, so neither is affected.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2V1.3.7V1.3.10
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and static analysis can discover missing neutralization of template directives.
Input validation directly stops externally supplied class or method names from selecting improper code via reflection.
Enforces authorization checks on the code or classes ultimately invoked, blocking unauthorized selections even if reflection is used.
Limits privileges of any code reached through unsafe reflection, reducing blast radius without stopping the selection itself.
Security engineering principles require use of safe templating APIs and proper escaping of external input.
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 avoid introducing externally controlled class selection via reflection.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover unsafe reflection during code review or scanning.
Preventing execution of unauthorized code can block exploitation of unsafe reflection at runtime.
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 directly forbid unsafe reflection and require whitelisting or static alternatives.
Security testing can detect and block unsafe reflection patterns before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and design reviews that reduce unsafe reflection risks.
Application security requirements can explicitly prohibit or constrain reflection based on untrusted input.
Secure architecture principles discourage dynamic class loading from external data sources.
Access restrictions limit who can supply the malicious input but do not address the reflection flaw itself.