SugarcrmApplication

CVE-2019-17311

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 directory traversal in the attachment 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 confidence

SugarCRM before versions 8.0.4 and 9.0.2 contains a directory traversal vulnerability in its attachment upload functionality. A regular (non-privileged) user can exploit this by crafting file paths with traversal sequences (e.g., ../) in the attachment parameter, allowing unauthorized access to files and directories outside the intended attachment storage directory.

MitigationUpgrade SugarCRM to version 8.0.4 or 9.0.2 or later to obtain the patch that addresses the directory traversal vulnerability in the attachment function.

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. Identify installed SugarCRM version
    Log into the SugarCRM admin interface and navigate to Admin > About SugarCRM, or check the version.php file in the root directory of the SugarCRM installation.
    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. Confirm regular user accounts exist
    Log into SugarCRM as an administrator and navigate to User Management to verify that non-admin user accounts are present in the system.
    Affected if Regular (non-privileged) user accounts exist and have access to the system
  3. Verify attachment upload feature is enabled
    Navigate to Admin > Connector Settings or check the upload directory configuration in the config.php file to confirm the attachment upload functionality is active.
    Affected if Attachment upload functionality is enabled and accessible to users
  4. Inspect web server logs for traversal attempts
    Review access logs in the web server logs directory (typically Apache logs or Nginx logs) for requests containing ../ sequences in attachment-related parameters.
    Affected if Log entries show traversal sequences like ../ in attachment or filename parameters
  5. Check for unauthorized file access outside upload directory
    Examine the SugarCRM upload directory (usually /upload by default) and parent directories for files that should not exist there, or review file system timestamps for unexpected modifications.
    Affected if Files exist outside the designated upload directory or unusual file modifications are present

A system is affected if it runs SugarCRM versions 7.9.0.0-7.9.4.x, 8.0.0-8.0.3.x, or 9.0.0-9.0.1.x with non-admin user accounts able to access the attachment upload feature.

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 9.0.2 or later to obtain the patch that addresses the directory traversal vulnerability in the attachment function.

Fix this in Sugarcrm Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
21.0 hours of engineering $3,680
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17311 — 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-2019-17311 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