CVE-2022-32153
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 · uneditedSplunk Enterprise peers in Splunk Enterprise versions before 9.0 and Splunk Cloud Platform versions before 8.2.2203 did not validate the TLS certificates during Splunk-to-Splunk communications by default. Splunk peer communications configured properly with valid certificates were not vulnerable. However, an attacker with administrator credentials could add a peer without a valid certificate and connections from misconfigured nodes without valid certificates did not fail by default. For Splunk Enterprise, update to Splunk Enterprise version 9.0 and Configure TLS host name validation for Splunk-to-Splunk communications (https://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/9.0.0/Security/EnableTLSCertHostnameValidation) to enable the remediation.
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 confidenceSplunk Enterprise peers did not validate TLS certificates during Splunk-to-Splunk communications by default. An attacker with administrator credentials could add a peer without a valid certificate, allowing man-in-the-middle attacks on peer communications. Misconfigured nodes without valid certificates did not fail, enabling interception of encrypted traffic between peers.
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< 9.0< 8.2.2203CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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.
-
Check installed Splunk Enterprise versionRun: splunk --version or access About > Version in Splunk Web. Compare the version number to 9.0 (e.g., 8.2.x, 8.1.x, 8.0.x).Affected if Version is below 9.0 for Splunk Enterprise, or below 8.2.2203 for Splunk Cloud Platform.
-
Verify if clustering or indexer clustering is enabledCheck server.conf for [clustering] stanza, or run: splunk show cluster-config. Also check for search head clustering via splunk show shcluster-config.Affected if Clustering or any peer replication is enabled, exposing the inter-node communication attack surface.
-
Check TLS certificate validation setting for server communicationsInspect server.conf for the sslVerifyServerCert setting in [general] or [sslConfig] sections. Look for: sslVerifyServerCert = false or missing sslVerifyServerCert = true.Affected if sslVerifyServerCert is set to false or is absent, meaning certificate validation is disabled.
-
Check web.conf for SSL settings related to Splunk-to-Splunk communicationsReview $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/system/local/web.conf for [settings] stanza and any httpServerConfig SSL parameters. Check for disabled certificate validation.Affected if Web configuration disables certificate verification for peer communications.
-
Check server.conf for splunktcp SSL configurationLook for [splunktcp] stanzas in server.conf and verify sslVerifyServerCert settings. Also check [sslConfig] section for any requireClientCert settings set to false.Affected if splunktcp (forwarder-to-indexer communication) has certificate verification disabled.
A system is affected if it runs Splunk Enterprise below 9.0 (or Cloud below 8.2.2203) and has peer clustering/replication enabled with TLS certificate validation disabled or not explicitly configured to true.
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 · scoped8.2.22039.0
Update to Splunk Enterprise 9.0 or Splunk Cloud Platform 8.2.2203 and configure TLS hostname validation for Splunk-to-Splunk communications per Splunk documentation.
Splunk Enterprise 9.0 or Splunk Cloud Platform 8.2.2203
- Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to version 9.0 or later
- Configure TLS hostname validation for Splunk-to-Splunk communications per Splunk documentation (https://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/9.0.0/Security/EnableTLSCertHostnameValidation)
- For Splunk Cloud Platform customers, contact Splunk support to ensure deployment of version 8.2.2203 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-32153 — 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-2022-32153 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