CVE-2024-22133
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 Fiori Front End Server - version 605, allows altering of approver details on the read-only field when sending leave request information. This could lead to creation of request with incorrect approver causing low impact on Confidentiality and Integrity with no impact on Availability of the application.
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 Fiori Front End Server version 605 fails to enforce read-only field restrictions on approver details within leave request workflows. The application allows users to modify approver information that should be non-editable, enabling creation of leave requests with incorrect or unauthorized approvers.
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= 605CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Verify SAP Fiori Front End Server versionAccess SAP Fiori Admin front-end server settings or check system information to confirm the installed Fiori Front End Server version equals 605Affected if The installed version is exactly 605
-
Identify leave request transactions in Fiori launchpadLog into the Fiori launchpad and locate leave request related applications such as Leave Request, Leave Management, or Time Off requestsAffected if Leave request applications are available in the launchpad
-
Inspect approver field properties in OData metadataAccess the OData service metadata for the leave request transaction (for example, by navigating to /sap/opu/odata/sap/HRusiXXXX_CV/ or similar leave request service endpoint) and examine the properties for ApproverName or ApproverID fieldsAffected if Approver fields in the metadata do not have the read-only annotation set to true or are marked as editable
-
Attempt to modify approver field via OData patch requestUse a REST client or browser developer tools to intercept a leave request creation or edit request and attempt to modify the ApproverID or ApproverName field before submissionAffected if The application accepts the modified approver value and processes the request without server-side rejection
A user is affected if the SAP Fiori Front End Server version is 605 and the leave request workflow permits modification of approver fields that should be read-only, which can be verified by inspecting OData metadata annotations or successfully submitting a modified approver value.
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 server-side validation to enforce read-only field policies and add proper authorization checks to prevent modification of approver fields in leave request transactions.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-22133 — 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-2024-22133 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