CVE-2023-22952
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 · uneditedIn SugarCRM before 12.0. Hotfix 91155, a crafted request can inject custom PHP code through the EmailTemplates because of missing input validation.
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 confidenceThis is a PHP code injection vulnerability in SugarCRM's EmailTemplates module. Due to missing input validation, an attacker can inject custom PHP code through crafted requests, potentially achieving remote code execution. The vulnerability affects versions before 12.0 Hotfix 91155.
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>= 11.0.0, < 11.0.5>= 12.0.0, < 12.0.2CVSS 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.
-
Determine the installed SugarCRM versionLog into the SugarCRM admin interface and navigate to Admin > About, or check the version.php file in the SugarCRM root directory (typically includes/version.php or cache/include/modules/Teams/Version.php)Affected if The version shown is 11.0.0 through 11.0.4, or 12.0.0 through 12.0.1 (any version before 11.0.5 or 12.0.2)
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.
dbcve · scoped11.0.512.0.2
Apply Hotfix 91155 or update to the patched version of SugarCRM 12.0. Until the patch is applied, consider restricting access to the EmailTemplates functionality to trusted users only.
SugarCRM 11.0.5 or 12.0.2 (or apply Hotfix 91155)
- 1. Create a complete backup of the SugarCRM database and file system before proceeding
- 2. Test the upgrade in a staging environment that mirrors production
- 3. If running SugarCRM 11.x (>= 11.0.0, < 11.0.5): upgrade to version 11.0.5
- 4. If running SugarCRM 12.x (>= 12.0.0, < 12.0.2): upgrade to version 12.0.2
- 5. Alternatively, apply Hotfix 91155 if provided by SugarCRM support for your specific version
- 6. After upgrade, verify EmailTemplates functionality works correctly
- 7. Validate the fix by attempting to inject PHP code in EmailTemplates (should be sanitized/blocked)
- 8. Deploy to production after successful validation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $3,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-22952 — 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-2023-22952 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