CVE-2024-39592
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 · uneditedElements of PDCE does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. This allows an attacker to read sensitive information causing high impact on the confidentiality 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 confidenceThis is a Broken Access Control (BAC) vulnerability in PDCE where authenticated users can access resources or data beyond their intended permissions. The lack of proper authorization checks allows privilege escalation, enabling an authenticated attacker to read sensitive information they should not have access to, resulting in high confidentiality impact.
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= 108CVSS 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 S/4HANA S4core versionUse SAP transaction code SM37 or SM51 to display system version information, or query the SAP system for the S4CORE component version number. Compare against affected versions 102 and 103.Affected if The installed S4CORE version equals 102 or 103.
-
Identify installed S/4HANA S4coreop versionUse SAP transaction code SM37 or SM51 to display system version information, or query the SAP system for the S4COREOP component version number. Compare against affected versions 104, 105, 106, 107, and 108.Affected if The installed S4COREOP version equals 104, 105, 106, 107, or 108.
-
Verify PDCE component is presentCheck if the PDCE (Profit Center Data Engine or related PDCE functionality) component is installed and active in the SAP system. This can be done via transaction code SE11 or SE16 by checking for PDCE-related tables, or via transaction code SFW5 to view installed components.Affected if The PDCE component is installed and active in the SAP S/4HANA environment.
-
Review PDCE endpoint authorization assignmentsUse transaction code SUIM (User Information System) or SU53 to examine authorization objects assigned to users accessing PDCE-related transactions or services. Check if authenticated users without proper PDCE privileges can access PDCE data.Affected if Users with standard authenticated access can retrieve PDCE sensitive data without elevated authorization checks being enforced.
A system is affected if it runs S4CORE version 102 or 103, or S4COREOP versions 104-108, AND has the PDCE component installed, allowing standard authenticated users to access data beyond their intended permissions.
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 · scopedImplement and enforce proper authorization checks across all PDCE endpoints and functionalities to verify users have appropriate permissions before granting access to resources or sensitive data.
S4CORE 108 or later (SAP S/4HANA 2024) - check SAP Security Notes for specific patch requirements per version
- Check the SAP Security Note for CVE-2024-39592 in the SAP Support Portal (support.sap.com)
- Apply the relevant SAP Security Note patch to your S/4HANA system
- After applying the patch, verify that PDCE (Process-Driven Compliance Engine) authorization checks are now enforced
- Test the fix by attempting to access PDCE elements with a non-privileged authenticated user to confirm authorization is properly required
- Review user authorizations in transaction SU01 or PFCG to ensure they align with the principle of least privilege
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-39592 — 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-2024-39592 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