CVE-2024-37175
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 CRM WebClient does not perform necessary authorization check for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. This could allow an attacker to access some sensitive information.
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 confidenceSAP CRM WebClient has an authorization bypass vulnerability where the application fails to perform necessary authorization checks for authenticated users, allowing privilege escalation to access sensitive information that should be restricted based on user roles and permissions.
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= 107= 108= 701= 731= 746= 747= 748= 800= 801CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed SAP CRM S4fnd versionUse SAP transaction code SMAM to view installed software components or run SAPMMC to check the S4fnd component version. Alternatively, use transaction code SPAM to view installed packages and their versions.Affected if The installed version is exactly 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, or 108.
-
Identify installed SAP CRM WebClient UI versionUse SAP transaction code SPAM or SAINT to view installed support packages for the WebClient UI component. Check transaction code SICF to confirm the WebClient UI service nodes are active.Affected if The installed version is exactly 701, 731, 746, 747, 748, 800, or 801.
-
Confirm WebClient UI is enabled and accessibleVerify that the ICF service nodes for WebClient UI are active by checking transaction code SICF, and confirm users can access the CRM WebClient URL.Affected if The WebClient UI service is active and accessible to authenticated users.
-
Review user access logs for unauthorized data accessUse transaction code SM37 to review background jobs, and use transaction code SU01 to audit user role assignments. Check transaction code RSUSR200 for user activity logs.Affected if Users with lower privileges can access data or functions that should be restricted based on their assigned roles.
Your environment is affected if you have exactly version 102-108 of S4fnd or exactly version 701/731/746/747/748/800/801 of WebClient UI installed AND the WebClient UI is enabled and accessible to authenticated users.
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 appropriate SAP security patch for this authorization vulnerability and review user role configurations to ensure proper authorization controls are enforced for all authenticated user actions.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-37175 — 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-2024-37175 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