Skip to content

CVE-2022-0563

Is CVE-2022-0563 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

Community verdict: No field verdicts yet. Be the first practitioner to weigh in.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.4%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-209
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

cisa ssvc

CISA Vulnrichment · assessed

Exploitation
None
in the wild
Automatable
No
at scale
Technical impact
Partial
on success

CISA decision, by how critical the affected system is to you:

  • low impact → Track
  • medium impact → Track
  • high impact → Track

Track: normal patch cycle · Track*: watch closely · Attend: patch sooner · Act: patch now. About SSVC ↗

scanner noise

anonymous, aggregated from real reports · via Denoizr
ScannerFlagged inTurned out noise
Wiz1 scan100%

How often this CVE was flagged by each scanner and how much turned out to be noise (false positives), aggregated anonymously from de-noised reports. Higher noise means the alert is more often not a real risk — verify your exposure.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:KernelNetapp

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

A flaw was found in the util-linux chfn and chsh utilities when compiled with Readline support. The Readline library uses an "INPUTRC" environment variable to get a path to the library config file. When the library cannot parse the specified file, it prints an error message containing data from the file. This flaw allows an unprivileged user to read root-owned files, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This flaw affects util-linux versions prior to 2.37.4.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2022-0563
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2022-0563/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2022-0563)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2022-0563"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2022-0563/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2022-0563"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

timeline

  1. CISA SSVC assessment · exploitation: none
  2. Published by NVD

Score and exploit changes tracked since .

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-209.