CVE-2003-1035
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 · uneditedThe default installation of SAP R/3 46C/D allows remote attackers to bypass account locking by using the RFC API instead of the SAPGUI to conduct a brute force password guessing attack, which does not lock out the account like the SAPGUI does.
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 confidenceThe default installation of SAP R/3 46C/D enforces account lockout policies only for SAPGUI connections but not for RFC (Remote Function Call) API connections. Attackers can bypass account lockout mechanisms by using the RFC API interface to conduct brute force password guessing attacks, which does not trigger account lockout like the SAPGUI does.
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 dataall versions= 4.6c= 4.6dCVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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.
-
Identify SAP R/3 versionLog into the SAP system and use transaction code STMS (Transport Management System) or transaction SM51 (SAP System Monitoring) to display the installed SAP R/3 version and releaseAffected if The version shows SAP R/3 46C/D or any SAP R/3 version (all versions are affected per the CVE)
-
Check SAPGUI versionIn SAPGUI, go to Help > About SAP Frontend or check the sapgui.exe version property if installed locallyAffected if SAPGUI version equals 4.6c or 4.6d specifically
-
Verify RFC account lockout profile parameterIn SAP, use transaction code RZ10 (Profile Maintenance) or RZ11 (Profile Parameter) to inspect the login/fails_to_session_end parameter and related login failure parameters. Check if they are set to enforce lockout for RFC connectionsAffected if The profile parameter is either not set, set to a very high value, or explicitly configured to not apply to RFC logons (default behavior in affected versions)
-
Check SM19 security audit configuration for RFCUse transaction SM19 (Security Audit) to examine whether security auditing is activated specifically for RFC logon eventsAffected if Security auditing is not activated, or RFC logon events are not being audited (SM19 not enabled for RFC)
If SAP R/3 is running and account lockout enforcement (via login profile parameters and SM19 audit configuration) is not explicitly configured for RFC API connections, the system is vulnerable to brute force attacks via RFC without triggering account lockout.
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.
From vendor dataEnable account lockout enforcement for RFC API connections in SAP by configuring the appropriate profile parameters (e.g., login/fails_to_session_end) and using transaction SM19 to activate security auditing for RFC logons.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-1035 — 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-2003-1035 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