CVE-2025-23187
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 · uneditedDue to missing authorization check in an RFC enabled function module in transaction SDCCN, an unauthenticated attacker could generate technical meta-data. This leads to a low impact on integrity. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability.
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 an SAP vulnerability where an RFC-enabled function module accessed via transaction SDCCN lacks proper authorization checks. An unauthenticated attacker can invoke this function module to generate technical metadata, resulting in low integrity impact but no confidentiality or availability impact.
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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Verify SDCCN transaction accessibilityAccess SAP transaction code SDCCN and confirm whether the transaction is accessible to users without elevated privileges. Use transaction SU53 after attempting access to check missing authorizations.Affected if SDCCN transaction is accessible to unauthenticated or low-privilege users without proper authorization checks in place.
-
Identify the affected RFC function moduleWithin transaction SDCCN, examine the RFC-enabled function modules that handle technical metadata generation. Use transaction SE37 (Function Builder) to inspect the function module code for missing AUTHORITY-CHECK statements.Affected if The RFC function module invoked via SDCCN lacks AUTHORITY-CHECK or proper authorization object validation in its source code.
-
Check RFC destination exposureUse transaction SM59 to examine RFC destinations that may expose the vulnerable function module. Verify whether the RFC destination allows external or unauthenticated invocation.Affected if RFC destinations associated with SDCCN are configured to allow external or unauthenticated access without proper authentication mechanisms.
-
Review authorization role assignmentsUse transaction PFCG to examine roles assigned to users who access SDCCN. Check whether roles contain appropriate authorization objects (such as S_AUTH_NOAUTHORITY or equivalent) for the exposed function module.Affected if Users accessing SDCCN lack specific authorization objects or have roles that do not enforce proper access controls on the RFC function module.
Your environment is affected if the SDCCN transaction and its associated RFC function module are accessible without proper authorization checks, allowing unauthenticated metadata generation.
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 authorization checks on the affected RFC function module in transaction SDCCN, typically by adding authority checks (e.g., S_AUTH_NOAUTHORITY) or restricting RFC access through SAP authorization roles.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23187 — 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-2025-23187 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