CVE-2024-36996
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 9.2.2, 9.1.5, and 9.0.10 and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 9.1.2312.109, an attacker could determine whether or not another user exists on the instance by deciphering the error response that they would likely receive from the instance when they attempt to log in. This disclosure could then lead to additional brute-force password-guessing attacks. This vulnerability would require that the Splunk platform instance uses the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) authentication scheme.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a user enumeration vulnerability in Splunk Enterprise and Cloud Platform's SAML authentication. An attacker can determine whether a valid user account exists by analyzing differences in error responses when attempting to authenticate with SAML. The vulnerability allows attackers to enumerate valid usernames, which facilitates subsequent brute-force password guessing attacks.
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>= 9.0.0, <= 9.0.10>= 9.1.0, < 9.1.5>= 9.2.0, < 9.2.2>= 9.1.2312, < 9.1.2312.109CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 Splunk Enterprise versionNavigate to Settings > About > About Splunk, or run the command: splunk --version or check $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/splunk.versionAffected if The installed version falls within 9.0.0 to 9.0.10, 9.1.0 to 9.1.4, or 9.2.0 to 9.2.1 (vulnerable ranges)
-
Check Splunk Cloud Platform versionNavigate to the Cloud Portal Settings > About page, or contact Splunk Cloud administrator to verify the cloud versionAffected if The cloud version is 9.1.2312 through 9.1.2312.108 (vulnerable range)
-
Verify SAML authentication is configuredNavigate to Settings > Authentication > SAML, or check for SAML configuration files in $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/system/local/authentication.confAffected if SAML authentication is enabled and mapped to user authentication
-
Inspect SAML error response behaviorAttempt to authenticate via SAML with a known invalid username and compare the error message to one generated with a valid username but invalid passwordAffected if Different error messages are returned for invalid user vs invalid credentials - the vulnerability exists when these differ
-
Review SAML configuration for error message uniformityCheck $SPLUNK_HOME/etc/system/local/authentication.conf for the samlSloRetry and related settings, or inspect the SAML IdP metadata configuration for error handlingAffected if The SAML configuration does not explicitly normalize error messages to be identical for both invalid users and invalid credentials
You are affected if your Splunk version is within the vulnerable ranges AND SAML authentication is configured, because the enumeration flaw only applies when SAML authentication is in use.
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 · scoped9.1.59.1.2312.1099.2.2
Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to version 9.2.2, 9.1.5, or 9.0.10 (or later), or Splunk Cloud Platform to 9.1.2312.109 or later. Alternatively, configure SAML to return uniform error messages for both invalid users and invalid credentials to prevent user enumeration.
Splunk Enterprise: 9.0.10, 9.1.5, or 9.2.2 (or later); Splunk Cloud Platform: 9.1.2312.109
- 1. Identify your current Splunk Enterprise or Splunk Cloud Platform version from the affected version list
- 2. For Splunk Enterprise: Upgrade to version 9.0.10, 9.1.5, or 9.2.2 (or later) depending on your current major version branch
- 3. For Splunk Cloud Platform: Contact Splunk Support to request upgrade to version 9.1.2312.109 or later
- 4. After upgrade, verify that SAML authentication continues to function correctly
- 5. Test that the user enumeration vulnerability is remediated by attempting login with non-existent users and confirming no difference in error responses
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-2024-36996 — 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-2024-36996 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