CVE-2026-20137
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 10.2.0, 10.0.3, 9.4.5, 9.3.7, and 9.2.9, and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 10.1.2507.0, 10.0.2503.9, 9.3.2411.112, and 9.3.2408.122, a low-privileged user who does not hold the "admin" or "power" Splunk roles could bypass the SPL safeguards for risky commands when they create a Data Model that contains an injected SPL query within an object. They can bypass the safeguards by exploiting a path traversal vulnerability.
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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability in Splunk Enterprise and Cloud Platform allows low-privileged users (non-admin/non-power roles) to bypass SPL safeguards for risky commands by creating Data Models containing injected SPL queries within objects.
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>= 9.2.0, < 9.2.9>= 9.3.0, < 9.3.7>= 9.4.0, < 9.4.5>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.3>= 9.3.2408, < 9.3.2408.122>= 9.3.2411, < 9.3.2411.112>= 10.0.2503, < 10.0.2503.9= 10.1.2507CVSS 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 versionNavigate to Settings > About > Version or run: splunk versionAffected if Version is >= 9.2.0 and < 9.2.9, OR >= 9.3.0 and < 9.3.7, OR >= 9.4.0 and < 9.4.5, OR >= 10.0.0 and < 10.0.3
-
Check Splunk Cloud Platform versionCheck the Cloud Platform version via the Cloud Portal or contact Splunk supportAffected if Version is >= 9.3.2408 and < 9.3.2408.122, OR >= 9.3.2411 and < 9.3.2411.112, OR >= 10.0.2503 and < 10.0.2503.9, OR equals 10.1.2507
-
Verify Data Models are accessible to low-privileged usersNavigate to Settings > Data Models and review which roles have read or write access to Data Models. Check if users with non-admin/non-power roles have permissions to create or edit Data Models.Affected if Low-privileged users (without admin or power role) have ability to create or modify Data Models
-
Audit existing Data Models for suspicious SPL injectionReview Data Model configurations via Settings > Data Models > [select each] > Edit. Look for objects containing unexpected SPL commands such as | exec, | script, or other risky commands.Affected if Any Data Model contains SPL queries with risky commands that were not intentionally created by an administrator
You are affected if your Splunk version falls within the affected ranges AND low-privileged users have access to create or modify Data Models in your environment.
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 · scoped9.2.99.3.79.3.2408.122
Upgrade Splunk Enterprise to versions 10.2.0, 10.0.3, 9.4.5, 9.3.7, or 9.2.9 and above, and Splunk Cloud Platform to versions 10.1.2507.0, 10.0.2503.9, 9.3.2411.112, or 9.3.2408.122 and above.
Splunk Enterprise: upgrade to 9.2.9, 9.3.7, 9.4.5, 10.0.3, or preferably 10.2.0 | Splunk Cloud Platform: upgrade to 9.3.2408.122, 9.3.2411.112, 10.0.2503.9, or 10.1.2507.0
- 1. Identify the currently running Splunk Enterprise or Splunk Cloud Platform version
- 2. For Splunk Enterprise: If running 9.2.x, upgrade to 9.2.9 or later; if running 9.3.x, upgrade to 9.3.7 or later; if running 9.4.x, upgrade to 9.4.5 or later; if running 10.0.x, upgrade to 10.0.3 or later; otherwise upgrade to 10.2.0
- 3. For Splunk Cloud Platform: Contact Splunk Support to request the appropriate patched version upgrade (9.3.2408.122, 9.3.2411.112, 10.0.2503.9, or 10.1.2507.0)
- 4. After upgrade, verify that low-privileged users without admin/power roles can no longer bypass SPL safeguards via Data Model path traversal
- 5. Review user role assignments to ensure only trusted users have Data Model creation permissions
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-2026-20137 — 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-2026-20137 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