CVE-2021-21444
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 Business Objects BI Platform, versions - 410, 420, 430, allows multiple X-Frame-Options headers entries in the response headers, which may not be predictably treated by all user agents. This could, as a result, nullify the added X-Frame-Options header leading to Clickjacking attack.
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 confidenceSAP Business Objects BI Platform versions 410, 420, and 430 send multiple X-Frame-Options headers in HTTP responses. Due to inconsistent handling of duplicate headers across different user agents, the X-Frame-Options protection can be nullified, allowing clickjacking attacks where the application is embedded in an iframe by malicious sites.
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= 410= 420= 430CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 if SAP Business Objects BI Platform is runningCheck for running SAP Business Objects processes or access the web interface URL (typically on ports 8080, 8000, or 80/443). Common paths: /BOE/BI, /sap/boc, /businessobjects/enterprise XIAffected if The application is not running - no further action needed; if running, proceed to next check
-
Retrieve HTTP response headers from the Business Objects web interfaceUse a tool like curl or browser dev tools to send a request to the SAP Business Objects login or main page and capture response headers. Example: curl -I https://<server>:<port>/BOE/BI/Affected if Unable to retrieve response headers - check network connectivity and service availability
-
Inspect for X-Frame-Options header presenceExamine the HTTP response for any X-Frame-Options header values (should contain DENY, SAMEORIGIN, or ALLOW-FROM)Affected if No X-Frame-Options header present - protection is absent but this is a different issue; if present, continue to check for duplicates
-
Check for duplicate X-Frame-Options headersExamine all X-Frame-Options headers in the response. If multiple X-Frame-Options lines appear in the headers, this indicates duplicate headers are being sentAffected if Multiple X-Frame-Options headers are present in the response - the environment is affected by this CVE
Your environment is affected if SAP Business Objects BI Platform versions 410, 420, or 430 is running and returning duplicate X-Frame-Options headers in HTTP responses, allowing clickjacking via iframe embedding.
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 dataConfigure the server to send a single X-Frame-Options header (DENY or SAMEORIGIN) and ensure no duplicate headers are transmitted, eliminating ambiguity in user agent processing.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-21444 — 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-2021-21444 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