CVE-2022-22535
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 ERP HCM Portugal - versions 600, 604, 608, does not perform necessary authorization checks for a report that reads the payroll data of employees in a certain area. Since the affected report only reads the payroll information, the attacker can neither modify any information nor cause availability impacts.
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 confidenceMissing authorization check in SAP ERP HCM Portugal (versions 600, 604, 608) allows unauthorized users to access a report that reads employee payroll data in a specific area. This is a Broken Access Control vulnerability where the report does not verify user permissions before displaying sensitive payroll information.
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= 600= 604= 608CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Verify SAP ERP HCM versionUse SAP transaction code SMIF or check system version information to determine the installed SAP ERP HCM release version. Look for versions 600, 604, or 608.Affected if The installed SAP ERP HCM version is exactly 600, 604, or 608.
-
Confirm Portugal module is deployedUse SAP transaction code SE11 or SPAM to check if the SAP ERP HCM Portugal country-specific module (often identified by country namespace PT) is installed in the system.Affected if The Portugal-specific HCM module is present in the SAP system.
-
Identify payroll reports in Portugal moduleUse SAP transaction code SE38 or SE80 to search for executable reports in the Portugal HCM namespace that handle payroll data retrieval.Affected if Payroll-related reports exist in the Portugal HCM module.
-
Check authorization object assignmentsUse SAP transaction code SU53 or SUIM to examine the authorization objects assigned to the payroll reports. Specifically check if authorization objects P_PCLX or P_ORGIN are being validated before report execution.Affected if The payroll reports lack proper authorization object checks (P_PCLX, P_ORGIN) or return insufficient authorization errors when accessed by unauthorized users.
A system is affected if it runs SAP ERP HCM versions 600, 604, or 608 with the Portugal module installed and contains payroll reports that execute without verifying user authorization 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 dataImplement proper authorization checks on the affected payroll report using SAP's role-based access control (RBAC) framework to restrict access to authorized personnel only.
- 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-2022-22535 — 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-2022-22535 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