CVE-2023-32707
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 versions of Splunk Enterprise below 9.0.5, 8.2.11, and 8.1.14, and Splunk Cloud Platform below version 9.0.2303.100, a low-privileged user who holds a role that has the ‘edit_user’ capability assigned to it can escalate their privileges to that of the admin user by providing specially crafted web requests.
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 confidenceThis is a vertical privilege escalation vulnerability in Splunk Enterprise and Cloud Platform where a low-privileged user holding the 'edit_user' capability can escalate their privileges to admin level by sending specially crafted web requests. The vulnerability stems from insufficient authorization checks when processing user edit operations.
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, < 8.1.14>= 8.2.0, < 8.2.11>= 9.0.0, < 9.0.5< 9.0.2303.100CVSS 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 Splunk Enterprise versionNavigate to Settings > About > About Splunk, or run: splunk --version or check $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/splunk.versionAffected if Version is >= 8.1.0 and < 8.1.14, OR >= 8.2.0 and < 8.2.11, OR >= 9.0.0 and < 9.0.5
-
Check Splunk Cloud Platform versionView the version in the Cloud Platform portal or contact Splunk support for version confirmationAffected if Version is below 9.0.2303.100
-
Identify users with edit_user capabilityNavigate to Settings > Users and Authentication > Roles, or query: | rest /services/authorization/roles | fields role_name capabilities | where match(capabilities, "edit_user")Affected if Any role other than admin has the edit_user capability assigned to it
-
Audit recent user modification eventsRun search: index=_internal sourcetype=splunkd UI_USER_EDIT user=* action=edit | table _time user edited_user roles | head 100Affected if Low-privileged users have modified their own or others' roles to include admin-level permissions
-
Review web access logs for suspicious user edit API callsCheck $SPLUNK_HOME/var/log/splunk/web_access.log for POST requests to /services/authentication/users/{user} with role changes to admin or power rolesAffected if Requests exist from non-admin users that modified role assignments to admin-level roles
You are affected if your Splunk version falls within the affected ranges AND you have any user (other than admin) with the edit_user capability, especially if unauthorized role escalations are observed in audit logs.
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 · scoped8.1.148.2.119.0.5
Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to versions 9.0.5, 8.2.11, or 8.1.14 (or later), or Splunk Cloud Platform to version 9.0.2303.100 or later. Until patched, carefully audit users with 'edit_user' capability and monitor for suspicious user modification requests.
Splunk Enterprise: 8.1.14, 8.2.11, or 9.0.5 (depending on current major version); Splunk Cloud Platform: 9.0.2303.100
- Determine current Splunk Enterprise version by navigating to About > Version in the Splunk UI or running: splunk version
- If running 8.1.x, upgrade to version 8.1.14 or later
- If running 8.2.x, upgrade to version 8.2.11 or later
- If running 9.0.x, upgrade to version 9.0.5 or later
- For Splunk Cloud Platform, contact Splunk Support to schedule upgrade to version 9.0.2303.100 or later
- After upgrade, verify the fix by confirming the Splunk version matches the fixed releases
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32707 — 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-2023-32707 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