CVE-2022-1342: A lack of password masking in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager allows physically proximate attackers to observe sensitive data.
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 18/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.37% (FIRST EPSS).
- Physical access to the device is required. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
A lack of password masking in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager allows physically proximate attackers to observe sensitive data. A caching issue can cause sensitive fields to sometimes stay revealed when closing and reopening a panel, which could lead to involuntarily disclosing sensitive information. This issue affects: Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager 2022.1.24 version and prior versions.
- Published
- Jun 15, 2022
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 31th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-549
Report tools
Action score
18
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 18 / 40 · 4.6 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| devolutions | remote desktop manager | cpe:2.3:a:devolutions:remote_desktop_manager |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- devolutions remote desktop managerup to 2022.1.24 inclusive
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (DEVOLUTIONS). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager
- unspecified and later · up to and including 2022.1.24affected
Same product
devolutions: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-2590Improper
enforcement of the Disable password saving in vaults setting in the
connection entry component in Devolutions Remote Desktop Mana39Monitor
- CVE-2024-6057Improper authentication in the vault password feature in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager 2024.1.31.0 and earlier allows an attacker that 39Monitor
- CVE-2023-6593
Client side permission bypass in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager 2023.3.4.0 and earlier on iOS allows an attacker that has access to th39Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2021-23922Apr 1, 2021 · An issue was discovered in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager before 2020.2.12.21Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2021-42098Oct 18, 2021 · An incomplete permission check on entries in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager before 2021.2.16 allows attackers to bypass permissions via 36Monitor
- Later →CVE-2022-33995Jun 21, 2022 · A path traversal issue in entry attachments in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager before 2022.2 allows attackers to create or overwrite file31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Physical access to the device is required.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Physical
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-549 · Missing Password Field MaskingCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.