dbcve.org
Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2024-45285

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-09-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
60/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
The RFC enabled function module allows a low privileged user to perform denial of service on any user and also change or delete favourite nodes. By sending a crafted packet in the function module targeting specific parameters, the specific targeted user will no longer have access to any functionality of SAP GUI. There is low 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 confidence

An RFC-enabled function module in SAP lacks proper authorization controls, allowing a low-privileged user to send crafted packets that cause denial of service for targeted users and modify or delete their favorite nodes in SAP GUI.

MitigationImplement proper authorization checks in the affected RFC function module using appropriate SAP authorization objects to restrict access to authorized personnel only.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify RFC-enabled function modules related to SAP GUI favorites
    Use SAP transaction SE37 (Function Builder) and search for function modules containing terms like 'FAVORITE', 'GUI_FAVORITE', or similar patterns in their names. Execute the search using the pattern '/*FAVORITE*' or '*FAVORITE*' to find relevant modules.
    Affected if An RFC-enabled function module exists that handles SAP GUI favorites without proper authorization checks.
  2. Verify the function module is RFC-enabled
    In SE37, display the function module and check the 'Remote-Enabled' checkbox in the attributes tab. If this is checked, the module can be called remotely via RFC.
    Affected if The favorite-handling function module has Remote-Enabled checked, allowing external RFC calls.
  3. Check authorization objects assigned to the RFC function module
    In SE37, display the function module and navigate to the 'Authorization' tab. Review what authorization objects are assigned and their required values. Use transaction SU53 or analyze the authorization check code in the function module source.
    Affected if No authorization objects are assigned, or weak/blank authorization checks allow low-privileged users to execute the function module.
  4. Test RFC access with a low-privilege test account
    Using a test user with minimal SAP privileges (e.g., a basic dialog user without elevated roles), attempt to call the identified RFC function module via transaction SE37 (Test > Test Dialog) or an external RFC client. Verify if the call succeeds and what operations it allows.
    Affected if A low-privileged user can successfully call the RFC function module and perform operations on favorites of other users.
  5. Inspect the function module source code for authorization logic
    In SE37, display the function module and view the source code (Goto > Source). Search for AUTHORITY-CHECK statements or P authorization checks. Determine if favorites of other users can be modified without proper authorization validation.
    Affected if The source code lacks proper AUTHORITY-CHECK statements before modifying or deleting favorite nodes, or allows access to any user's favorites.

Your environment is affected if an RFC-enabled function module handling SAP GUI favorites exists and is accessible to low-privileged users without adequate authorization controls, allowing them to cause denial of service or modify/delete other users' favorites.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper authorization checks in the affected RFC function module using appropriate SAP authorization objects to restrict access to authorized personnel only.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45285 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-45285 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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