FioriApplication · Sap

CVE-2018-2474

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2018-10-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
72/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
SAP Fiori 1.0 for SAP ERP HCM (Approve Leave Request, version 2) application allows an attacker to trick an authenticated user to send unintended request to the web server. This vulnerability is due to insufficient CSRF protection.

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 confidence

This is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SAP Fiori 1.0 for SAP ERP HCM Approve Leave Request version 2. An attacker can craft malicious requests that trick an authenticated user into unknowingly submitting unintended requests to the web server due to insufficient anti-CSRF protections.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms and validate them server-side. Additionally, configure SameSite cookie attributes and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent CSRF 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
FioriApplication
Affected:= 1.0

CVSS 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
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm SAP Fiori version
    Access SAP Fiori Admin UI or check system information to verify Fiori version is exactly 1.0
    Affected if Fiori version is 1.0 and the HCM Approve Leave Request app is deployed
  2. Verify HCM Approve Leave Request app is installed
    Check the installed Fiori apps in the SAP Fiori Launchpad configuration or app catalog for 'Approve Leave Request' or similar HCM leave management app
    Affected if The Approve Leave Request application is present and accessible to users
  3. Inspect forms for anti-CSRF token presence
    Log into Fiori as a user, navigate to the Approve Leave Request feature, and inspect the HTML source or network requests for state-changing forms to check for hidden anti-CSRF token fields
    Affected if Forms lack hidden token fields or tokens are not submitted with requests
  4. Check SameSite cookie configuration
    Capture a session cookie from the Fiori application using browser developer tools or a proxy and inspect the Set-Cookie headers for SameSite attribute
    Affected if Cookies do not have SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attribute set
  5. Verify Origin or Referer header validation
    Submit a request to the Approve Leave Request endpoint with a mismatched or missing Origin/Referer header and observe if the server accepts or rejects it
    Affected if Server accepts requests with missing or mismatched Origin/Referer headers for state-changing operations

A user is affected if they run SAP Fiori version 1.0 with the HCM Approve Leave Request app deployed and the application lacks anti-CSRF tokens in forms, SameSite cookie attributes, and Origin/Referer header validation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms and validate them server-side. Additionally, configure SameSite cookie attributes and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent CSRF attacks.

Fix this in Fiori Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing10.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,580
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,928.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-2474 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2018-2474 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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