Incorrect Permission AssignmentWeakness · CWE-732

CVE-2025-42997

MEDIUM · 6.6 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-05-13
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
72/100
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
Under certain conditions, SAP Gateway Client allows a high-privileged user to access restricted information beyond the scope of the application. Due to the possibility of influencing application behavior or performance through misuse of the exposed data, this may potentially lead to low impact on confidentiality, integrity, and 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 confidence

SAP Gateway Client contains an access control vulnerability where high-privileged users can access restricted information beyond the application's intended scope, potentially exposing sensitive data that should be protected.

MitigationApply SAP security notes/patches for this vulnerability and review SAP Gateway Client authorization configurations to ensure proper enforcement of access controls.

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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/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 SAP Gateway Client installation and version
    Locate the SAP Gateway Client executable or check SAP system information for the GUI component version. Common locations: SAP GUI installation directory or SAP system transaction code /n/IWFND/ERROR_LOG or /n/IWFND/GW_CLIENT.
    Affected if SAP Gateway Client version is unpatched and within the affected version range (compare your installed version to SAP security notes for this CVE).
  2. Verify high-privileged user access configuration
    Access SAP Gateway Client and navigate to the authorization settings or user role configurations. Check the defined roles and privileges assigned to high-privileged accounts using transaction code PFCG or SU01.
    Affected if High-privileged users (such as SAP_ALL or administrative roles) have been granted permissions that extend beyond intended Gateway Client access scopes.
  3. Inspect access control list (ACL) settings
    Within SAP Gateway Client, examine the ICF (Internet Communication Framework) nodes and associated ACL configurations. Check transaction code SICF for activated services related to Gateway Client.
    Affected if ACL configurations permit unrestricted access to sensitive Gateway Client endpoints or OData services that should be limited.
  4. Review audit logs for unauthorized data access
    Check SAP audit logs (transaction code SM37 or RSAU_READ_LOG) for Gateway Client usage patterns, focusing on high-privileged users accessing data outside their typical scope.
    Affected if Audit logs show high-privileged users accessing restricted information through Gateway Client that falls outside expected business functions.

You are affected if SAP Gateway Client is installed and unpatched, with high-privileged users having access to restricted data beyond the application's intended scope due to inadequate access control configurations.

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

Apply SAP security notes/patches for this vulnerability and review SAP Gateway Client authorization configurations to ensure proper enforcement of access controls.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
30.0 hours of engineering $5,280
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-42997 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-42997 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