CVE-2023-40625
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 · uneditedS4CORE (Manage Purchase Contracts App) - versions 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user. This could allow an attacker to perform unintended actions resulting in escalation of privileges which has low impact on confidentiality and integrity with no impact on availibility of the system.
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 confidenceS4CORE Manage Purchase Contracts application versions 102-107 lacks proper authorization checks for authenticated users, allowing privilege escalation where users can perform actions outside their intended permissions. This is a broken access control vulnerability affecting the purchase contracts management functionality.
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= 102= 103= 104= 105= 106= 107CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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 S4CORE installation versionUse SAP transaction code SMICM (ICM Monitor) or execute SAP bundle version check via SAINT or SUM to determine the S4CORE component version installed in the system. Look for the S4CORE version number in the installed software component versions.Affected if The installed S4CORE version matches 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, or 107 exactly.
-
Verify Manage Purchase Contracts application is deployedCheck the SAP Fiori App Catalog or use transaction code /IWFND/ERROR_LOG to confirm the Manage Purchase Contracts application (typically part of SAP S/4HANA procurement modules) is deployed and active in the system.Affected if The Manage Purchase Contracts Fiori application is installed and accessible in the system.
-
Review user role assignments for procurement functionsUse transaction code PFCG (Role Maintenance) to examine roles assigned to users that include procurement-related authorizations. Check for roles containing authorization objects M_BES_EKO (Purchasing: Purchase Order) and M_BES_FFO (Purchasing: Purchase Contract).Affected if Users have roles granting access to procurement functions without proper restriction checks.
-
Inspect authorization traces for the applicationRun transaction code ST01 (Authorization Trace) or use the Security Audit Log (transaction SM19) to trace authorization checks when the Manage Purchase Contracts application is accessed. Look for missing or skipped authorization object checks during contract creation or modification.Affected if Authorization traces show successful execution of sensitive operations without proper M_BES_TEK or equivalent authorization object checks.
-
Check for privilege escalation in audit logsReview audit logs via transaction code SM20 (User Audit Log) or security audit logs for users performing actions in Manage Purchase Contracts that exceed their assigned role permissions, particularly contract creation, approval, or modification beyond their organizational scope.Affected if Audit logs reveal users executing contract actions outside their documented permission boundaries.
The environment is affected if the installed S4CORE version is exactly 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, or 107 AND the Manage Purchase Contracts application is deployed, with evidence of missing authorization enforcement in trace or audit logs.
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 and enforce proper authorization checks at all entry points and sensitive operations within the Manage Purchase Contracts application to validate user permissions before executing actions.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-40625 — 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-2023-40625 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