Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
Some Silverstripe Omnipay deployments could record a failed or incomplete payment as completed if certain payment flow details were exposed. The direct business risk is inaccurate order fulfillment or entitlement access without money collected. The CVSS score is low because exploitation requires unusual gateway or 3DS exposure, but payment systems deserve prompt correction.
Executive priority
Treat as a targeted payment-integrity issue: not broadly wormable, but capable of causing revenue leakage or unauthorized fulfillment in affected checkout flows. Patch during the next payment-system maintenance window, sooner for high-value or automated fulfillment sites.
Technical view
Affected silverstripe/silverstripe-omnipay versions mishandle payment state for some Omnipay gateways using intermediary states such as isNotification() or isRedirect(). If a payment identifier or success URL is exposed, the integration may prematurely mark payment complete. Patched releases are 2.5.2, 3.0.2, 3.1.4, and 3.2.1.
Likely exposure
Exposure is limited to SilverStripe sites using vulnerable silverstripe/silverstripe-omnipay versions with affected gateway flows. The source notes most gateways hide the required information, while some flawed 3DSecure implementations may expose it.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not report known active exploitation, and this CVE is not listed as KEV. Exploitation requires exposed payment identifiers or success URLs plus a gateway flow with intermediary notification or redirect states.
Researcher notes
Key preconditions are vulnerable package version, relevant gateway state behavior, and exposure of payment identifier or success URL. Sources do not name specific gateways, banks, exploit campaigns, or alternative mitigations. Validation should focus on dependency version, gateway flow mapping, and payment-status transition auditing.
Mitigation direction
- Upgrade silverstripe/silverstripe-omnipay to 2.5.2, 3.0.2, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, or later.
- Prioritize patching because the advisory states there are no known workarounds.
- Review payment gateway and 3DSecure provider guidance for exposed identifiers or success URLs.
- Reconcile recent completed orders against actual payment settlement records.
Validation and detection
- Check composer.lock or dependency manifests for vulnerable silverstripe/silverstripe-omnipay version ranges.
- Confirm production deployments run a patched release, not only source control.
- Identify configured Omnipay gateways using notification or redirect intermediary states.
- Review recent failed, redirected, or 3DSecure payments for mismatched order completion status.
- Run normal checkout regression tests after upgrading.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-436: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2022-29254 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Low
- CVSS
- 3.7 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N2.21.4Primary CVE scoreVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
3.7LowVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://github.com/silverstripe/silverstripe-omnipay/security/advisories/GHSA-48f2-m7jg-866xCVE reference · x_refsource_CONFIRM
- https://github.com/silverstripe/silverstripe-omnipay/commit/7dee9a1e0a5f54c2dc06e018cff3d9a19044e01bCVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Interpretation Conflict
Interpretation Conflict represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.