CVE-2025-24875
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, by default, sets certain cookies with the SameSite attribute configured to None (SameSite=None). This includes authentication cookies utilized in SAP Commerce Backoffice. Applying this setting reduces defense in depth against CSRF and may lead to future compatibility issues.
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 · high confidenceSAP Commerce by default configures certain cookies, including authentication cookies used in SAP Commerce Backoffice, with the SameSite=None attribute. This weakens defense-in-depth protections against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks and may cause compatibility issues with browsers that enforce stricter SameSite policies.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 installation and versionLocate the SAP Commerce installation directory and check version information in the build configuration or manifest files (such as local.properties, platform version file, or theCommerce extensions info)Affected if The installed version of SAP Commerce falls within the affected version range (if known) or is an unpatched version that ships with default SameSite=None cookie configuration
-
Verify SAP Commerce Backoffice is in useCheck if the Backoffice extension/module is enabled in the SAP Commerce configuration (look for 'backoffice' in the localextensions.xml or extensions configuration)Affected if Backoffice is enabled and in use, as the CVE specifically mentions authentication cookies used in SAP Commerce Backoffice as affected
-
Inspect authentication cookie SameSite attributeLog into SAP Commerce Backoffice and use browser developer tools (Application tab > Cookies) or capture an HTTP response using a proxy/tool to inspect the Set-Cookie headers for authentication sessionsAffected if Authentication cookies (session IDs, login tokens) are being set with SameSite=None instead of Strict or Lax
-
Check default cookie configuration in SAP CommerceReview the SAP Commerce web configuration files (such as web-spring.xml, cookie-servlet.xml, or similar configuration files in the storefront/web root) for cookie attribute settings, specifically looking for SameSite configurationAffected if The cookie configuration defaults to SameSite=None or lacks explicit SameSite=Strict/Lax settings for authentication cookies
A user is affected if they run a vulnerable SAP Commerce version with Backoffice enabled and authentication cookies are configured with SameSite=None instead of Strict or Lax.
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 dataConfigure SAP Commerce to set appropriate SameSite attributes (typically Strict or Lax) for authentication and session cookies instead of None, ensuring CSRF protection is maintained while preserving necessary cross-site functionality where required.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-24875 — 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-2025-24875 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