CVE-2021-33712
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in Mendix SAML Module (All versions < V2.1.2). The configuration of the SAML module does not properly check various restrictions and validations imposed by an identity provider. This could allow a remote authenticated attacker to escalate privileges.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe Mendix SAML Module versions prior to V2.1.2 contains a validation flaw where the SAML configuration does not properly enforce restrictions and validations imposed by the identity provider. This improper validation could allow an authenticated attacker to bypass authorization controls and escalate privileges within the application.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 2.1.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if Mendix SAML Module is installedReview the project’s ‘App Store modules’ or ‘Marketplace dependencies’ to confirm the Mendix SAML Module is included in the application deploymentAffected if The SAML Module is not present in the project dependencies
-
Determine the installed SAML Module versionLocate the SAML Module in the project directory and open its metadata or version file (typically found in the module’s ‘metadata.json’ or ‘version’ file under the SAML Module folder)Affected if The installed version is prior to V2.1.2 (e.g., V2.1.1, V2.0.x, or earlier)
-
Verify SAML authentication is configured and activeCheck the Mendix SAML Module configuration within the Mendix Studio Pro or examine the ‘SAML’ configuration file in the project settings to confirm SSO is enabledAffected if SAML single sign-on is actively configured and the vulnerable module version is in use
-
Confirm the application uses SAML for authenticationReview the runtime authentication settings to verify that SAML is the active authentication method for user logins rather than local or other identity providersAffected if SAML is the primary authentication mechanism and the module version is below V2.1.2
The environment is affected if the Mendix SAML Module version is below V2.1.2 and SAML authentication is actively configured for the application.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped2.1.2
Upgrade the Mendix SAML Module to version V2.1.2 or later, and verify that the identity provider's SAML assertions are properly validated with all required restrictions enforced.
V2.1.2
- Upgrade the Mendix SAML Module to version 2.1.2 or later from the Mendix App Store or Marketplace
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-33712 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-33712 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data