CVE-2019-17313
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 directory traversal in the Studio 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 confidenceSugarCRM versions before 8.0.4 and 9.x before 9.0.2 contain a directory traversal vulnerability in the Studio module that allows authenticated Developer users to access files and directories outside the intended web root through path 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.
-
Determine SugarCRM versionLog into SugarCRM as administrator and navigate to Admin > About SugarCRM, or check the version.php file in the SugarCRM root directory for the $sugar_version variableAffected if The installed version falls within 7.9.0.0 to 7.9.5.0, 8.0.0 to 8.0.4, or 9.0.0 to 9.0.2
-
Verify Studio module accessibilityLog into SugarCRM and attempt to access the Studio module via the navigation menu or by navigating to index.php?module=StudioAffected if The Studio module is visible and accessible to the logged-in user account
-
Check for Developer role assignmentNavigate to Admin > User Management > Users, then view the role/permission profile of the account being used, or check the ACLRoles assigned to the userAffected if The user account has Developer-level permissions or Studio module access rights
-
Review access logs for path traversal attemptsExamine SugarCRM application logs (located in sugarcrm.log or in the logs directory) and web server access logs for unusual requests containing ../ patterns targeting the Studio module endpointAffected if Logs contain requests to index.php?module=Studio with path traversal sequences like ../ that the user should not have access to
The environment is affected if SugarCRM version is 7.9.0.0-7.9.5.0, 8.0.0-8.0.4, or 9.0.0-9.0.2 AND the Studio module is accessible to a user with Developer permissions.
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. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, restrict Developer user permissions and monitor access to the Studio module.
- 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-2019-17313 — 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-2019-17313 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