SugarcrmApplication

CVE-2019-17302

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2019-10-07
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 7.9.5.0 / 8.0.4 or later.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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
SugarCRM before 8.0.4 and 9.x before 9.0.2 allows PHP code injection in the ModuleBuilder module by a Developer 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 confidence

SugarCRM versions prior to 8.0.4 and 9.x prior to 9.0.2 contain a PHP code injection vulnerability in the ModuleBuilder module. An authenticated user with Developer role privileges can inject arbitrary PHP code through ModuleBuilder, potentially achieving remote code execution on the server.

MitigationUpgrade SugarCRM to version 8.0.4 or later, or 9.0.2 or later. Until the upgrade is completed, restrict Developer-level module access to trusted users only and monitor for suspicious ModuleBuilder activity.

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
SugarcrmApplication
Affected:>= 7.9.0.0, < 7.9.5.0>= 8.0.0, < 8.0.4>= 9.0.0, < 9.0.2

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
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 checks

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

  1. Determine installed SugarCRM version
    Locate the version.php file in the SugarCRM root directory (often at ./include/utils.php or check the admin panel under 'About'). The file typically contains a version constant such as $sugar_version or $GLOBALS['sugar_version'].
    Affected if The installed version falls within: 7.9.0.0 through 7.9.4.x, 8.0.0 through 8.0.3.x, or 9.0.0 through 9.0.1.x
  2. Verify ModuleBuilder module is accessible
    Log into SugarCRM as an administrator and navigate to Administration > Module Builder. If the ModuleBuilder interface loads without access denied errors, the module is enabled.
    Affected if ModuleBuilder is enabled and accessible to users
  3. Identify users with Developer role or module access
    In the admin panel, go to Users > Roles (or User Management > Role Management) and review which users are assigned a role that includes Developer-level access to ModuleBuilder. Check the role definition for 'Developer' privilege.
    Affected if Any user account has Developer role privileges that allow access to ModuleBuilder
  4. Inspect ModuleBuilder package directories for suspicious content
    Examine the directory containing ModuleBuilder packages (typically ./custom/working/modules/ or ./cache/modules/packages/). Look for newly created or modified package directories containing PHP files with unexpected names or content.
    Affected if Unexpected PHP files exist in ModuleBuilder working directories that were not created by legitimate administrators

A system is affected if it runs SugarCRM versions 7.9.x prior to 7.9.5.0, 8.0.x prior to 8.0.4, or 9.0.x prior to 9.0.2, AND the ModuleBuilder module is accessible to authenticated users with Developer privileges.

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
Upgrade available Upgrade to 7.9.5.0 / 8.0.4 / 9.0.2 or later
Fixed in 7.9.5.08.0.49.0.2
Interim mitigation

Upgrade SugarCRM to version 8.0.4 or later, or 9.0.2 or later. Until the upgrade is completed, restrict Developer-level module access to trusted users only and monitor for suspicious ModuleBuilder activity.

Fix this in Sugarcrm Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,120
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,992.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17302 — 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-2019-17302 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