CVE-2019-0279
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 · uneditedABAP BASIS function modules INST_CREATE_R3_RFC_DEST, INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFCDEST, and INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFC_DEST in SAP BASIS (fixed in versions 7.0 to 7.02, 7.10 to 7.30, 7.31, 7.40, 7.50 to 7.53) do not perform necessary authorization checks in all circumstances for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges.
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 confidenceSAP BASIS function modules INST_CREATE_R3_RFC_DEST, INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFCDEST, and INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFC_DEST lack proper authorization checks in all circumstances, allowing authenticated users to create or modify RFC destinations beyond their intended privileges, resulting in privilege escalation.
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>= 7.00, <= 7.02>= 7.10, <= 7.30>= 7.50, <= 7.53= 7.31= 7.40CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 BASIS versionExecute transaction SM51 or use SAP kernel version command 'sapkernel -v' to determine the installed BASIS versionAffected if Installed BASIS version falls within 7.00-7.02, 7.10-7.30, 7.31, 7.40, or 7.50-7.53 ranges
-
Verify function module existenceUse transaction SE37 or SE80 to search for INST_CREATE_R3_RFC_DEST, INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFCDEST, and INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFC_DEST function modules in theFunction BuilderAffected if These function modules exist in the SAP system
-
Check authorization for function modulesUse transaction SUIM to query authorization objects for function group SINST and check if users have authorization object S_RFC with ACTVT 16 (Execute) for the affected function modulesAffected if Users other than intended administrators have execute authorization on these function modules
-
Review existing RFC destinationsUse transaction SM59 to list all RFC destinations and check for any created via the vulnerable function modules (typically those with unusual or escalated privileges)Affected if RFC destinations exist that were created without proper authorization oversight
A user is affected if the SAP BASIS version is within 7.00-7.53 AND the vulnerable function modules are accessible to users beyond authorized administrators.
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 dataApply SAP security patches for the affected BASIS versions (7.0-7.53). Until patches are deployed, restrict access to these function modules through SAP role-based authorization controls.
- 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-2019-0279 — 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-2019-0279 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