CVE-2023-22940
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 · uneditedIn Splunk Enterprise versions below 8.1.13, 8.2.10, and 9.0.4, aliases of the ‘collect’ search processing language (SPL) command, including ‘summaryindex’, ‘sumindex’, ‘stash’,’ mcollect’, and ‘meventcollect’, were not designated as safeguarded commands. The commands could potentially allow for the exposing of data to a summary index that unprivileged users could access. The vulnerability requires a higher privileged user to initiate a request within their browser, and only affects instances with Splunk Web enabled.
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 confidenceIn Splunk Enterprise versions before 8.1.13, 8.2.10, and 9.0.4, aliases of the 'collect' SPL command (summaryindex, sumindex, stash, mcollect, meventcollect) were not designated as safeguarded commands. This allowed potentially unprivileged users to access data collected into summary indexes by higher-privileged users initiating requests within their browser, but only on instances with Splunk Web enabled.
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>= 8.1.0, < 8.1.13>= 8.2.0, < 8.2.10>= 9.0.0, < 9.0.4< 9.0.2209.3CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/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.
-
Check installed Splunk Enterprise versionRun the command: splunk version or inspect $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/splunk.versionAffected if The version is < 8.1.13, or >= 8.2.0 and < 8.2.10, or >= 9.0.0 and < 9.0.4
-
Verify Splunk Web is enabledCheck the configuration file $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/system/default/server.conf for the setting enableSplunkWeb = 1, or check in Splunk Web settings under Settings > Server settings > General settingsAffected if Splunk Web is enabled (enableSplunkWeb is not set to 0 or disabled)
-
Check for summary index data accessRun a search query using one of the affected command aliases: | summaryindex ... or | stash ... or | mcollect ... to see if data from summary indexes created by other users is accessibleAffected if Unprivileged users can retrieve summary index data created by higher-privileged users without proper authorization
You are affected if your Splunk version is in the vulnerable range AND Splunk Web is enabled, allowing unprivileged users to access summary index data via the unsafeguarded collect command aliases.
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 · scoped8.1.138.2.109.0.4
Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to version 8.1.13, 8.2.10, 9.0.4 or later to receive the patch that designates these commands as safeguarded. Alternatively, disable Splunk Web if not required.
Splunk Enterprise: 8.1.13, 8.2.10, or 9.0.4 (or later); Splunk Cloud Platform: 9.0.2209.3 or later
- 1. Identify current Splunk Enterprise version by navigating to Settings > About > Version in Splunk Web, or running: splunk version
- 2. Determine target upgrade version based on current release: if 8.1.x upgrade to 8.1.13; if 8.2.x upgrade to 8.2.10; if 9.0.x upgrade to 9.0.4 or later
- 3. For Splunk Cloud customers, verify with Splunk support that the platform is updated to version 9.0.2209.3 or later
- 4. Review Splunk Upgrade Planning documentation at docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/latest/Installation/PlanYourUpgrade
- 5. Test upgrade in a non-production environment before deploying to production
- 6. Create a backup of Splunk Enterprise configuration: $SPLUNK_HOME/bin/splunk backup 'full'
- 7. Download the appropriate installer from splunk.com/download
- 8. Perform the upgrade following Splunk's standard upgrade procedure
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-22940 — 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-2023-22940 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