CVE-2026-27686
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 a Missing Authorization Check in SAP Business Warehouse (Service API), an authenticated attacker could perform unauthorized actions via an affected RFC function module. Successful exploitation could enable unauthorized configuration and control changes, potentially disrupting request processing and causing denial of service. This results in low impact on integrity and high impact on availability, while confidentiality remains unaffected.
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 confidenceSAP Business Warehouse contains a Missing Authorization Check in its Service API, where an authenticated attacker can exploit an affected RFC function module to perform unauthorized actions. This allows configuration and control changes that can disrupt request processing and cause denial of service, with high availability impact but no confidentiality 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
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 Business Warehouse installationUse SAP transaction SE16 or SM37 to query system components and confirm Business Warehouse (BW) is installedAffected if SAP Business Warehouse component is present in the system
-
Determine Service API statusCheck if the SAP BW Service API is configured and active using transaction SRT_MESG or by reviewing ICF (Internet Communication Framework) services related to BWAffected if Service API is enabled and accessible via HTTP/HTTPS endpoints
-
Locate affected RFC function moduleReview RFC function modules exposed through the Service API using transaction SE37 or SM59 to identify those used for configuration and control operationsAffected if RFC function modules related to BW configuration are exposed via the Service API
-
Audit authorization role assignmentsUse transaction PFCG to examine roles assigned to users accessing the Service API, focusing on authorization objects S_RFC and S_BTCH_ADMAffected if Users have roles with insufficient or missing authorization checks for the exposed RFC function modules
A user is affected if SAP Business Warehouse is installed with the Service API enabled and RFC function modules lack proper authorization controls for authenticated users.
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 dataApply the relevant SAP security note/patch for this authorization vulnerability and review RFC function module authorization roles to ensure proper access controls are enforced for the Service API.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-27686 — 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-2026-27686 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