CVE-2022-32285
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 (Mendix 7 compatible) (All versions < V1.16.6), Mendix SAML Module (Mendix 8 compatible) (All versions < V2.2.2), Mendix SAML Module (Mendix 9 compatible) (All versions < V3.2.3). The affected module is vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) attacks due to insufficient input sanitation. This may allow an attacker to disclose confidential data under certain circumstances.
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 V1.16.6 (Mendix 7), V2.2.2 (Mendix 8), and V3.2.3 (Mendix 9) contain an XXE vulnerability due to insufficient input sanitization when processing XML. Attackers can exploit this to disclose confidential data by injecting malicious XML entities.
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< 1.16.6>= 2.0.0, < 2.2.2>= 3.0.0, < 3.2.3CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Locate the Mendix SAML Module in your projectCheck your project's 'widgets' or 'modules' directory for the 'Saml' module folder. The module is typically found under 'userlib' or within the project structure as a community commons module. Inspect the module's metadata or 'version' file if available.Affected if The Saml module folder exists in your project
-
Identify the installed SAML Module versionOpen the module's 'metadata.json' or 'definition.xml' file if present. Alternatively, check the 'Marketplace' download location or your project's dependency manifest (e.g., 'package.json' or 'userlib' contents) for the version number.Affected if The version number is less than 1.16.6 for Mendix 7, less than 2.2.2 for Mendix 8, or less than 3.2.3 for Mendix 9
-
Determine your Mendix runtime platform versionCheck your application's 'm2ee.yaml' file, the Mendix Modeler (Studio Pro) project settings, or the 'manifest.mf' file within your deployment for the Mendix platform version (7, 8, or 9).Affected if The platform version is Mendix 7, 8, or 9
-
Verify if SAML SSO is configured or activeInspect your project's 'settings.py' or 'configuration' files for SAML-related settings. Check if the 'Saml' module is referenced in your application's startup logs or if SSO is enabled in the Mendix Modeler under 'Settings' > 'Authentication'.Affected if SAML single sign-on is enabled or the module is actively used for authentication
-
Confirm XML processing of SAML assertionsReview your application's logs or network traffic for incoming SAML responses (typically base64-encoded XML). The vulnerability applies when SAML responses are being parsed and processed by the module.Affected if SAML assertions are being processed by your application
You are affected if your Mendix application uses the SAML Module for single sign-on and the installed module version falls below 1.16.6 (Mendix 7), 2.2.2 (Mendix 8), or 3.2.3 (Mendix 9).
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 · scoped1.16.62.2.23.2.3
Upgrade the Mendix SAML Module to the patched version (V1.16.6 for Mendix 7, V2.2.2 for Mendix 8, V3.2.3 for Mendix 9 or later). Validate that SAML single sign-on functionality works correctly after the upgrade.
Mendix SAML Module: 1.16.6 (M7), 2.2.2 (M8), 3.2.3 (M9)
- 1. Identify which Mendix version compatibility your SAML module is using (Mendix 7, 8, or 9)
- 2. For Mendix 7 compatible: Upgrade Mendix SAML Module to version 1.16.6 or higher
- 3. For Mendix 8 compatible: Upgrade Mendix SAML Module to version 2.2.2 or higher
- 4. For Mendix 9 compatible: Upgrade Mendix SAML Module to version 3.2.3 or higher
- 5. After upgrading, verify SAML functionality works correctly in your application
- 6. Test the XML parsing behavior to confirm the XXE vulnerability is remediated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-32285 — 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-2022-32285 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