CVE-2025-20232
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 9.3.3, 9.2.5, and 9.1.8 and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 9.3.2408.103, 9.2.2406.108, 9.2.2403.113, 9.1.2312.208 and 9.1.2308.212, a low-privileged user that does not hold the “admin“ or “power“ Splunk roles could run a saved search with a risky command using the permissions of a higher-privileged user to bypass the SPL safeguards for risky commands on the “/app/search/search“ endpoint through its “s“ parameter. <br>The vulnerability requires the attacker to phish the victim by tricking them into initiating a request within their browser. The authenticated user should not be able to exploit the vulnerability at will.
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 an authorization bypass in Splunk Enterprise and Cloud Platform where a low-privileged user (non-admin/power roles) can execute saved searches containing risky commands by manipulating the 's' parameter on the '/app/search/search' endpoint, effectively bypassing SPL safeguards and running commands with elevated privileges.
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>= 9.1.0, < 9.1.8>= 9.2.0, < 9.2.5>= 9.3.0, < 9.3.3>= 9.1.2308, < 9.1.2308.212>= 9.1.2312.100, < 9.1.2312.208>= 9.2.2403.100, < 9.2.2403.113>= 9.2.2406.100, < 9.2.2406.108>= 9.3.2408.100, < 9.3.2408.103CVSS 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 Splunk Enterprise versionRun 'splunk --version' or access About page in Splunk Web to get the exact version numberAffected if Installed version is >=9.1.0 and <9.1.8, OR >=9.2.0 and <9.2.5, OR >=9.3.0 and <9.3.3
-
Check Splunk Cloud Platform versionAccess Splunk Cloud version information through the Cloud Platform administration interface or contact Splunk supportAffected if Installed version matches any of the affected Cloud ranges: >=9.1.2308 and <9.1.2308.212, >=9.1.2312.100 and <9.1.2312.208, >=9.2.2403.100 and <9.2.2403.113, >=9.2.2406.100 and <9.2.2406.108, or >=9.3.2408.100 and <9.3.2408.103
-
Identify low-privileged user rolesReview user roles in Splunk: Access Settings > Users and Authentication > Roles. Check for users assigned to roles that are neither 'admin' nor 'power'Affected if Non-admin/non-power users exist in the environment who can access saved searches
-
Audit saved searches with risky commandsSearch for saved searches containing dangerous SPL commands by running: | rest /servicesNS/-/search/saved/searches | search search=* | fields title search | where like(search, "%pipe command%") (replace with specific risky commands like 'exec', 'script', '|')Affected if Saved searches containing risky SPL commands exist and are accessible to low-privileged users
Your environment is affected if you run a vulnerable Splunk version AND have non-admin users who can access saved searches containing risky commands via the /app/search/search endpoint.
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 · scoped9.1.89.1.2308.2129.1.2312.208
Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to versions 9.3.3, 9.2.5, 9.1.8 or later, or upgrade Splunk Cloud Platform to versions 9.3.2408.103, 9.2.2406.108, 9.2.2403.113, 9.1.2312.208, 9.1.2308.212 or later.
Splunk Enterprise: 9.1.8+, 9.2.5+, 9.3.3+ | Splunk Cloud Platform: 9.1.2308.212+, 9.1.2312.208+, 9.2.2403.113+, 9.2.2406.108+
- Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to version 9.1.8 or higher for the 9.1.x branch
- Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to version 9.2.5 or higher for the 9.2.x branch
- Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to version 9.3.3 or higher for the 9.3.x branch
- For Splunk Cloud Platform customers, upgrade to the appropriate fixed version as provided by Splunk Cloud support: 9.1.2308.212, 9.1.2312.208, 9.2.2403.113, or 9.2.2406.108 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20232 — 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-2025-20232 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