CVE-2024-34689
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 · uneditedWebFlow Services of SAP Business Workflow allows an authenticated attacker to enumerate accessible HTTP endpoints in the internal network by specially crafting HTTP requests. On successful exploitation this can result in information disclosure. It has no impact on integrity and 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 · moderate confidenceWebFlow Services in SAP Business Workflow contains a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability allowing authenticated attackers to craft HTTP requests that enumerate accessible internal network endpoints. This enables reconnaissance of internal infrastructure and information disclosure but does not affect integrity or availability.
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 dataall versions= 700= 701= 702= 731= 740= 750= 751= 752= 753= 754= 755= 756CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/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 WebFlow Services are enabled in your SAP systemCheck transaction code SMICM ( ICM Monitor) or transaction SFOB (WebFlow Engine) to determine if WebFlow Services are active. Also review transaction SICF (ICF Services) for WebFlow-related service nodes under /sap/bc/webdynpro/sap/.Affected if WebFlow Services are active and exposed to authenticated users
-
Confirm your SAP Basis version against affected releasesExecute transaction ST03 or SM37 and locate the SAP_BASIS component version. Alternatively, use transaction SM51 and check the release information panel, or run the report SAPCVINFO in SE38.Affected if Your SAP Basis version matches 700, 701, 702, 731, 740, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, or 756
-
Identify users with access to WebFlow Service endpointsReview transaction PFCG roles assigned to users and check for roles containing WebFlow-related authorization objects such as S_WF_SRVS or S_WF_WEBFL. Use transaction SUIM to search for users with WebFlow authorizations.Affected if Multiple authenticated users have roles granting access to WebFlow Service endpoints
-
Review ICF service configuration for WebFlow URLsExecute transaction SICF and navigate to the WebFlow service path. Check which services are active and note their handler classes. Verify the hostname and port binding in the ICF service details.Affected if WebFlow ICF services are active and bound to reachable network interfaces
-
Monitor for anomalous internal HTTP requests originating from SAP application serverReview SAP Gateway security logs (transaction SMGW), ICM logs (transaction SMICM), and network firewall logs for outbound HTTP/HTTPS requests from the SAP server to internal IP ranges (10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) or internal hostnames.Affected if Outbound HTTP requests from SAP servers to internal network addresses are observed that were not initiated by legitimate business workflows
Your environment is affected if WebFlow Services are enabled and accessible to authenticated users, combined with a vulnerable SAP Basis version (700-756) and the system can make outbound HTTP requests to internal resources.
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 dataApply the relevant SAP security patch when available. In the interim, implement network segmentation to restrict WebFlow services from accessing sensitive internal resources and monitor for anomalous internal HTTP request patterns.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-34689 — 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-2024-34689 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