CVE-2019-17295
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 · uneditedSugarCRM before 8.0.4 and 9.x before 9.0.2 allows SQL injection in the history function by a Regular user.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in SugarCRM's history function allows authenticated Regular users to inject malicious SQL queries. The vulnerability exists in versions prior to 8.0.4 and 9.0.2, potentially allowing data exfiltration or database manipulation.
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>= 7.9.0.0, < 7.9.5.0>= 8.0.0, < 8.0.4>= 9.0.0, < 9.0.2CVSS 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:3.1/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 SugarCRM versionNavigate to Admin > About SugarCRM or check the includes/.. directory for version.php. Alternatively, inspect the sugar_version.json file in the root directory or the version constant in the application.Affected if Installed version falls within 7.9.0.0 to 7.9.4.x, 8.0.0 to 8.0.3.x, or 9.0.0 to 9.0.1.x
-
Confirm history module is enabledLog in as an administrator and go to Admin > Module Loader or Admin > Module Builder to verify the History module is installed and activated.Affected if The History module is present and enabled in the SugarCRM instance
-
Verify regular user access to history functionLog in with a non-admin (Regular) user account and attempt to access the history feature, typically found in the Activities or History subpanel of records such as Contacts, Leads, or Accounts.Affected if Regular users can access and interact with the history function without elevated privileges
-
Inspect the vulnerable endpointIf available, review web server access logs or use a proxy to intercept requests when a regular user accesses the history function. Look for requests to modules/History/ or similar endpoints that handle history data.Affected if The history endpoint accepts user-supplied input that could be reflected in SQL queries without proper sanitization
A SugarCRM installation is affected if it runs version 7.9.x prior to 7.9.5, 8.0.x prior to 8.0.4, or 9.0.x prior to 9.0.2, and the History module is accessible to regular (non-admin) users.
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 data7.9.5.08.0.49.0.2
Upgrade SugarCRM to version 8.0.4 or later, or 9.0.2 or later. Alternatively, apply vendor-supplied patches if available and implement web application firewall rules as a temporary compensating control.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17295 — 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-2019-17295 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