CVE-2024-45278
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 Commerce Backoffice does not sufficiently encode user controlled inputs, resulting in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. After successful exploitation, an attacker can cause limited impact on confidentiality and integrity 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 confidenceSAP Commerce Backoffice contains a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability caused by insufficient encoding of user-controlled inputs. An attacker can inject malicious scripts through untrusted input fields, potentially compromising user sessions or causing unintended actions in the context of the affected user's session.
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= 2205= 2211CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/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 SAP Commerce Backoffice versionLocate the SAP Commerce installation and determine the exact version of the Backoffice component. Common methods include checking the system information in SAP Commerce Admin Console, reviewing the manifest or version file in the installation directory, or querying the platform for its version number.Affected if The installed Backoffice version is exactly 2205 or exactly 2211
-
Confirm Backoffice is accessibleVerify that the SAP Commerce Backoffice web interface is deployed and accessible to users. Check if the Backoffice application is running and reachable via its URL endpoint.Affected if The Backoffice interface is actively deployed and accessible
-
Identify user input fields in BackofficeReview the Backoffice application for form fields, search inputs, or data entry points where users can submit untrusted data. These are the potential injection points for XSS.Affected if User-accessible input fields exist in the Backoffice interface without documented output encoding
A user is affected if their SAP Commerce Backoffice is exactly version 2205 or 2211 AND the Backoffice interface is deployed with user-accessible input fields that render data without encoding.
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 proper input validation and output encoding for all user-supplied data rendered in the Backoffice interface. Apply context-specific sanitization and use security libraries to neutralize script injection attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45278 — 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-2024-45278 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