CVE-2022-32286
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). In certain configurations SAML module is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks due to insufficient error message sanitation. This could allow an attacker to execute malicious code by tricking users into accessing a malicious link.
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 a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in error message handling. Insufficient sanitization of error output allows attackers to inject malicious scripts via specially crafted SAML responses or URLs, which execute when users encounter error pages.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify installed SAML Module versionLocate the SAML Module in your Mendix project folder (typically in the 'userlib' directory or check your project's 'deployment' folder). The version is usually indicated in the module's manifest or filename (e.g., 'Saml-1.16.5.mpk'). Alternatively, inspect the project's 'deployment/model.metadata' file for module version information.Affected if The version is below 1.16.6 for Mendix 7, below 2.2.2 for Mendix 8, or below 3.2.3 for Mendix 9.
-
Confirm Mendix platform versionCheck your application's 'mendix.version' file in the project root or deployment directory, or view the runtime log when the application starts. The platform version indicates which version range applies to your deployment.Affected if The platform is Mendix 7, 8, or 9 and the SAML Module version falls outside the safe ranges for that platform.
-
Verify SAML SSO is configuredInspect your application's configuration files (such as 'm2ee.yaml' or 'deployment.json') and check the Mendix Runtime logs for SAML-related configuration. Also review the 'SAML' settings in the Mendix Modeler if you have access to the model. Look for entries indicating SAML IdP configuration.Affected if SAML SSO is actively configured and the application processes SAML responses.
-
Determine if error pages are accessibleCheck if the application exposes SAML-related error endpoints. Review your web server configuration and Mendix routing settings for any publicly accessible error pages triggered by SAML authentication failures. Inspect the application's custom error handling configuration if present.Affected if SAML error pages can be triggered and displayed to end users without additional authentication barriers.
Your environment is affected if you are running any version of the Mendix SAML Module below 1.16.6 (Mendix 7), below 2.2.2 (Mendix 8), or below 3.2.3 (Mendix 9), and SAML is configured with accessible error handling that could display unsanitized error messages.
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 corresponding to your Mendix platform version (V1.16.6+, V2.2.2+, or V3.2.3+) to incorporate proper error message sanitization.
Mendix 7: V1.16.6; Mendix 8: V2.2.2; Mendix 9: V3.2.3
- 1. Identify which Mendix version (7, 8, or 9) your SAML module is compatible with
- 2. For Mendix 7 compatible: Upgrade Mendix SAML Module to version 1.16.6 or later
- 3. For Mendix 8 compatible: Upgrade Mendix SAML Module to version 2.2.2 or later
- 4. For Mendix 9 compatible: Upgrade Mendix SAML Module to version 3.2.3 or later
- 5. After upgrading, verify that SAML authentication still functions correctly
- 6. Test that error messages no longer contain unsanitized user input
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-32286 — 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-2022-32286 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