CVE-2019-0368
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 · uneditedSAP Customer Relationship Management (Email Management), versions: S4CRM before 1.0 and 2.0, BBPCRM before 7.0, 7.01, 7.02, 7.12, 7.13 and 7.14, does not sufficiently encode user-controlled inputs within the mail client resulting in Cross-Site Scripting 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 confidenceSAP Customer Relationship Management's Email Management component fails to properly encode user-controlled inputs, allowing malicious script injection via email fields. The XSS vulnerability exists in S4CRM versions prior to 1.0/2.0 and BBPCRM versions prior to 7.0/7.01/7.02/7.12/7.13/7.14, where unencoded input is rendered in the mail client interface.
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= 7.0= 7.01= 7.02= 7.12= 7.13= 7.14= 1.0= 2.0CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify installed SAP CRM productCheck system information or SAP transaction code SM51 to determine if the system runs S4CRM (S/4CRM) or BBPCRM (CRM)Affected if Product is BBPCRM or S4CRM
-
Determine BBPCRM versionExecute SAP transaction code SPAM or check system version via SXMB_VERIFY; for BBPCRM, versions 7.0, 7.01, 7.02, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 are listed as affectedAffected if BBPCRM version matches 7.0, 7.01, 7.02, 7.12, 7.13, or 7.14
-
Determine S4CRM versionCheck S4CRM system version via transaction SE16N or system report; for S4CRM, versions 1.0 and 2.0 are listed as affectedAffected if S4CRM version is 1.0 or 2.0
-
Verify Email Management component is activeCheck transaction SCOT or SCUI to confirm Email Management (SMTP) configuration is enabled in the CRM systemAffected if Email Management component is configured and active in the CRM system
System is affected if running BBPCRM versions 7.0/7.01/7.02/7.12/7.13/7.14 or S4CRM versions 1.0/2.0 with Email Management component active and accessible via mail client interface.
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 the relevant SAP Security Notes to address input encoding in the email management module; validate and encode all user-supplied data before rendering in the mail client interface.
- 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-2019-0368 — 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-2019-0368 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