CVE-2020-6266
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 · uneditedSAP Fiori for SAP S/4HANA, versions - 100, 200, 300, 400, allows an attacker to redirect users to a malicious site due to insufficient URL validation, leading to URL Redirection.
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 · moderate confidenceSAP Fiori for SAP S/4HANA versions 100-400 contains an open redirect vulnerability due to insufficient URL validation. Attackers can craft malicious URLs that appear to originate from the legitimate SAP domain but actually redirect users to external malicious websites, enabling phishing and credential theft attacks.
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= 200= 300= 400= 500CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 SAP Fiori versionLog into SAP GUI and use transaction code /n/UI2/FLPD_CUST or check system information via transaction SM37. Alternatively, access SAP Fiori launchpad and check the About section in user settings.Affected if The installed version matches 200, 300, 400, or 500.
-
Locate SAP Fiori front-end server componentsCheck transaction SMICM (ICM Monitor) or use transaction SFPF (SAP Gateway) to identify Fiori front-end server components and their exposed URLs.Affected if The Fiori front-end server is exposed via SAP Web Dispatcher without proper URL validation rules.
-
Identify redirect-capable URL parametersReview SAP Fiori application configuration files in transaction SE80 or check web.xml descriptors in the SAP NetWeaver AS for redirect-capable parameters like 'redirect', 'url', or 'target'.Affected if Applications accept user-controlled redirect parameters without server-side validation.
-
Check for URL validation configuration in SAP Web DispatcherExamine SAP Web Dispatcher configuration (icm.filter_rules) for allowlist-based URL validation rules. Use transaction SICF to review external alias mappings.Affected if No strict allowlist validation is configured for redirect parameters, or validation rules are missing.
-
Review URL redirect behavior with test requestsSend a crafted request with a known malicious external URL in suspected redirect parameters to the Fiori launchpad URL and observe the response headers and status codes.Affected if The server returns a 3xx redirect response to an external untrusted domain.
A system is affected if it runs SAP Fiori versions 200, 300, 400, or 500 and allows redirect to external URLs through user-controllable parameters without allowlist-based validation.
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 dataImplement strict allowlist-based URL validation for all redirect parameters, ensuring only trusted relative or absolute URLs within the approved domain(s) are permitted. Use server-side validation and avoid reflecting user-controlled input directly in redirect locations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6266 — 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-2020-6266 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