Buffer copy without checking size of input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') vulnerability in cgi component in Synology Media Server before 1.8.1-
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 39/100)
- 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: 1.6% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 76.2% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. 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
Buffer copy without checking size of input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') vulnerability in cgi component in Synology Media Server before 1.8.1-2876 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors.
- Published
- Jul 28, 2022
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.6% · 76th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-120
Report tools
Action score
39
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.6%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.8
- CNA · synology
- 10.0
- 0.2 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| synology | media server | cpe:2.3:a:synology:media_server |
| synology | diskstation manager | cpe:2.3:o:synology:diskstation_manager |
| synology | router manager | cpe:2.3:a:synology:router_manager |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- synology media serverbefore 1.8.1-2876
- synology media serverbefore 1.4-2665
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (synology). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Synology Media Server
- unspecified and later · before 1.8.1-2876affected
Same product
synology: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2021-33180Improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in cgi component in Synology Media Server39Monitor
- CVE-2018-8914SQL injection vulnerability in UPnP DMA in Synology Media Server before 1.7.6-2842 and before 1.4-2654 allows remote attackers to execute ar39Monitor
- CVE-2024-4464Authorization bypass through user-controlled key vulnerability in streaming service in Synology Media Server before 1.4-2680, 2.0.5-3152 and30Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2021-34808Jun 17, 2021 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in cgi component in Synology Media Server before 1.8.3-2881 allows remote attackers to acce21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2022-27614Jul 28, 2022 · Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor vulnerability in web server in Synology Media Server before 1.8.1-2876 allows rem30Monitor
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.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
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
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- 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
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-120 · Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Root cause
When data is copied, the source length is not compared with the size of the destination buffer. Excess data overwrites adjacent memory.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-120 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
char buf[256];
memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);Fixed
char buf[256];
if (pkt->len > sizeof(buf)) {
return -EINVAL;
}
memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Overflow BuffersCAPEC-100likelihood: High · Very High
- Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-14likelihood: Medium · High
- Filter Failure through Buffer OverflowCAPEC-24likelihood: High · High
- MIME ConversionCAPEC-42likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Binary Resource FileCAPEC-44likelihood: High · Very High
- Buffer Overflow via Symbolic LinksCAPEC-45likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Variables and TagsCAPEC-46likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
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.