Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Exploited since 2022-09-30. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.
Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable from an adjacent network, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker must be on the same local network, Wi-Fi or VPN segment.Adjacent network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.Low
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:P/RL:O/RC:CAlso in the vector: Exploit code maturity: Proof of concept · Remediation level: Official fix · Report confidence: Confirmed
Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
1 found- MetasploitMicrosoft Exchange ProxyNotShell RCE2022-09-28 · exploit · rank Excellent · has check
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2022-09-28Metasploit module publishedMicrosoft Exchange ProxyNotShell RCE
- 2022-09-30Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
- 2022-10-03CVE publishedCVE List
- 2023-01-17F5 ships a ruleMicrosoft Exchange OWASSRF Remote Code Execution
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
First rule 2023-01-17, 106 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200103291 "Microsoft Exchange OWASSRF Remote Code Execution" (Command Execution, risk High), systems: IIS. References: CVE-2022-41082.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.