CVE-2024-58258
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 · uneditedSugarCRM before 13.0.4 and 14.x before 14.0.1 allows SSRF in the API module because a limited type of code injection can occur.
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 confidenceSugarCRM versions before 13.0.4 and 14.x before 14.0.1 contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the API module. The vulnerability stems from a limited type of code injection that allows attackers to manipulate the server into making arbitrary requests to internal or external resources via the API.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 the installed SugarCRM versionLog into the SugarCRM Admin panel and navigate to Admin > About, or inspect the config.php file in the SugarCRM root directory for the 'sugar_version' or 'suite_version' entry.Affected if The version is lower than 13.0.4 or falls within 14.0.0 to 14.0.0.x (before 14.0.1).
-
Confirm the API module is enabledNavigate to Admin > Module Loader or Admin > API Settings in the SugarCRM interface, or check the 'modules' directory for the presence of an API-related module configuration.Affected if The API module is installed and active, making the vulnerability surface accessible.
-
Verify API endpoint accessibilityAttempt a test request to a known SugarCRM API endpoint such as /rest/v10/ or /api/ Pingback/ServiceRouter to confirm the API is reachable without authentication restrictions.Affected if The API endpoints respond to requests, indicating the attack surface is exposed.
-
Check for outbound request behaviorReview SugarCRM logs or use a web proxy to capture API request traffic when triggering an API call that could trigger server-side requests, observing whether arbitrary URLs can be induced.Affected if The server can be induced to make outbound requests to arbitrary URLs supplied via API parameters.
A user is affected if their SugarCRM installation is version 13.x before 13.0.4 or 14.x before 14.0.1 AND the API module is enabled and accessible.
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 · scopedUpgrade to SugarCRM 13.0.4 or 14.0.1 or later. Additionally, implement strict URL validation and allowlist controls for API endpoints to restrict requests to trusted domains.
SugarCRM 13.0.4 or 14.0.1 (depending on your major version branch)
- 1. Identify the currently running SugarCRM version in your environment
- 2. If running SugarCRM 13.x, upgrade to version 13.0.4 or later
- 3. If running SugarCRM 14.x, upgrade to version 14.0.1 or later
- 4. After upgrading, verify the API module functionality to ensure the upgrade did not introduce issues
- 5. Review access controls on the API module to follow least-privilege principles
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-58258 — 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-2024-58258 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