CVE-2023-32217
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 · uneditedIdentityIQ 8.3 and all 8.3 patch levels prior to 8.3p3, IdentityIQ 8.2 and all 8.2 patch levels prior to 8.2p6, IdentityIQ 8.1 and all 8.1 patch levels prior to 8.1p7, IdentityIQ 8.0 and all 8.0 patch levels prior to 8.0p6 allow an authenticated user to invoke a Java constructor with no arguments or a Java constructor with a single Map argument in any Java class available in the IdentityIQ application classpath.
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 confidenceIdentityIQ allows authenticated users to invoke Java constructors with no arguments or a single Map argument in any Java class available in the application classpath. This insecure deserialization-like flaw enables attackers to instantiate arbitrary Java classes, potentially leading to remote code execution.
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= 8.0= 8.1= 8.2= 8.3CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Check IdentityIQ versionAccess IdentityIQ Admin UI, navigate to System > About, or check the version.properties file within the IdentityIQ WAR or deployment directoryAffected if The installed version is 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, or 8.3 without the corresponding patch (8.0p6, 8.1p7, 8.2p6, or 8.3p3)
-
Verify if identity transformer or similar custom expression feature is in useReview IdentityIQ configuration files (such as identity-config.xml or rule definitions) for any custom Java class instantiation in identity transformers, expression builders, or similar features that allow constructor invocationAffected if Custom rules or transformers that instantiate arbitrary Java classes are defined and active in the system
-
Check for unauthorized access attempts or suspicious activity logsReview IdentityIQ audit logs and system logs for patterns involving constructor invocation, class loading, or serialization-related operations from user sessionsAffected if Logs show suspicious constructor calls or class instantiation from untrusted sources
-
Examine application classpath for untrusted JARsInspect the IdentityIQ WEB-INF/lib directory and application classpath for any non-standard or custom JAR files that could be leveraged for malicious class instantiationAffected if Non-standard or custom JAR files exist that could be exploited to instantiate arbitrary classes
-
Review user permissions and role assignmentsCheck IdentityIQ user roles and permissions, particularly for users with access to features that allow custom Java code execution or class instantiation (such as custom rules, connectors, or expression functions)Affected if Users or roles have elevated permissions enabling access to class instantiation features
A user is affected if IdentityIQ is version 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, or 8.3 without the respective patch and any user with access to the vulnerable constructor invocation feature exists in the system.
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 · scopedApply the vendor-supplied patches: IdentityIQ 8.3 to 8.3p3, 8.2 to 8.2p6, 8.1 to 8.1p7, or 8.0 to 8.0p6.
Apply the relevant patch: 8.0p6, 8.1p7, 8.2p6, or 8.3p3 (or upgrade to a later version if available)
- Identify the currently installed IdentityIQ version and patch level
- Download the appropriate patch from SailPoint support portal: 8.0p6 for version 8.0, 8.1p7 for version 8.1, 8.2p6 for version 8.2, or 8.3p3 for version 8.3
- Apply the patch following SailPoint's standard patch installation procedures
- Restart IdentityIQ services as required by the patch
- Verify the patch was applied successfully by checking the IdentityIQ version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32217 — 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-2023-32217 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