CVE-2026-24323
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 · uneditedThe BSP applications allow an unauthenticated user to inject malicious script content via user-controlled URL parameters that are not sufficiently sanitized. When a victim accesses a crafted URL, the injected script is executed in the victim�s browser, leading to a low impact on confidentiality and integrity, and no impact on the 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 · high confidenceThis is a reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in BSP applications. An unauthenticated attacker can inject malicious JavaScript code through URL parameters that are not properly sanitized. When victims click on the crafted URL, the script executes in their browser, potentially stealing session cookies or performing actions on behalf of the user.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 600= 602= 603= 604= 605= 606= 617= 618= 102= 103= 104= 105= 106= 107= 108CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 installed SAP product versionUse SAP transaction code SM37 or check system version information to determine if the SAP Document Management System, SAP ERP, or SAP S4core version matches 600, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 617, 618, or 102-108Affected if The installed version matches any of the listed affected versions
-
Confirm BSP application usageCheck if Business Server Pages (BSP) applications are deployed and accessible in the SAP system by reviewing BSP-related transaction codes or application listingsAffected if BSP applications are active and accessible in the environment
-
Test URL parameter handlingNavigate to any BSP-based application page and inject a test payload (such as <script>alert('XSS')</script>) into URL parameters used by the applicationAffected if The injected script executes in the browser without sanitization or encoding
-
Review HTTP response headersExamine the HTTP response from BSP pages to check for absence of security headers like Content-Security-Policy or X-Content-Type-Options that help mitigate XSSAffected if Security headers are missing and URL parameters reflect user input directly in the response
A user is affected if they run any of the listed SAP product versions with BSP applications enabled and URL parameters reflect unsanitized input.
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 input validation and output encoding for all user-controlled URL parameters. Use context-appropriate escaping and consider implementing a Content Security Policy (CSP) as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-24323 — 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-2026-24323 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