CVE-2019-17316
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 PHP object injection in the Import module 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 confidenceSugarCRM versions before 8.0.4 and 9.x before 9.0.2 contain a PHP object injection vulnerability in the Import module. An authenticated regular user can trigger deserialization of maliciously crafted data, potentially leading to remote code execution or other impacts typical of PHP object injection flaws.
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 installed SugarCRM versionAccess the SugarCRM administration panel and navigate to Admin > System Settings, or check the version.php file in the SugarCRM root directory. Alternatively, check the footer of any SugarCRM page which often displays the version number.Affected if The installed version is 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.
-
Verify Import module accessibilityLog in as a regular (non-administrator) user account. Navigate to the Import module, typically found in the main navigation menu under 'Import' or 'Tools'. Attempt to access the import functionality.Affected if The Import module is accessible and functional for regular (non-admin) user accounts.
-
Check for unsafe PHP deserialization in Import codeIf code-level inspection is possible, examine the Import module PHP files for usage of PHP unserialize() function without proper validation. Look in the modules/Import/ directory of the SugarCRM installation.Affected if The Import module code contains unserialize() calls that process user-supplied data without validation or sanitization.
-
Confirm user authentication capabilityVerify that regular (non-privileged) user accounts can be created and authenticated in the SugarCRM system. Attempt to log in with a standard user account.Affected if Regular user accounts can authenticate and access the Import module with their standard credentials.
A user is affected if their SugarCRM version falls within the 7.9.0.0-7.9.4.x, 8.0.0-8.0.3.x, or 9.0.0-9.0.1.x ranges AND the Import module is accessible to regular authenticated 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 9.0.2 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict Import module access to administrative accounts only until the upgrade can be completed.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17316 — 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-2019-17316 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