CVE-2021-21474
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 HANA Database, versions - 1.0, 2.0, accepts SAML tokens with MD5 digest, an attacker who manages to obtain an MD5-digest signed SAML Assertion issued for an SAP HANA instance might be able to tamper with it and alter it in a way that the digest continues to be the same and without invalidating the digital signature, this allows them to impersonate as user in HANA database and be able to read the contents in the database.
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 HANA Database versions 1.0 and 2.0 accept SAML tokens signed using the weak MD5 hash algorithm, which is vulnerable to collision attacks. An attacker who obtains a valid MD5-signed SAML assertion can modify its contents while preserving the same digest, allowing them to bypass signature validation and impersonate any user to access database contents.
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= 1.00= 2.00CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 SAP HANA versionRun 'SELECT * FROM M_DATABASE' or check hdbversion file in the SAP HANA installation directoryAffected if The installed version is 1.0 or 2.0 (any revision)
-
Confirm SAML authentication is configuredCheck SAP HANA SAML provider status via SQL: SELECT * FROM SYS. SAML_PROVIDERS or inspect xs-security.json configuration file in the SAP HANA tenant databaseAffected if A SAML identity provider is configured and enabled in SAP HANA
-
Inspect SAML signing algorithm configurationReview the SAML provider configuration in SAP HANA for the 'signature_method' or 'digest_algorithm' parameter. Query: SELECT * FROM SYS. SAML_PROVIDERS WHERE PROVIDER_NAME = '<your_provider>'Affected if MD5 or md5 (case-insensitive) is listed as an accepted or configured signature or digest algorithm
-
Check IdP metadata for signing algorithmRetrieve and inspect the Identity Provider metadata XML file configured in SAP HANA. Look for 'DigestMethod' or 'SignatureMethod' elements within the SAML metadataAffected if The IdP metadata shows SHA-1 or MD5 as the specified digest or signature algorithm
You are affected if SAP HANA versions 1.0 or 2.0 are running with SAML authentication enabled and either the SAP HANA SAML configuration or the Identity Provider metadata accepts or specifies MD5 for signing or digest operations.
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 SAP HANA to reject SAML assertions using MD5 digests and require stronger hash algorithms (SHA-256 or above). Apply vendor patches if available and ensure the Identity Provider is configured to use secure signing algorithms.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-21474 — 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-2021-21474 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