Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2026-27687

MEDIUM · 5.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-03-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
64/100
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
Due to missing authorization check in SAP S/4HANA HCM Portugal and SAP ERP HCM Portugal, a user with high privileges could access sensitive data belonging to another company. This vulnerability has a high impact on confidentiality and does not affect 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

Missing authorization check in SAP S/4HANA HCM Portugal and SAP ERP HCM Portugal allows users with high privileges to access sensitive data belonging to another company due to improper validation of company/tenant context in data access requests (Insecure Direct Object Reference or broken access control).

MitigationImplement proper authorization checks to verify user permissions for the specific company code before returning data, ensuring complete tenant isolation in multi-company SAP deployments.

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

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if SAP S/4HANA or SAP ERP with Portugal HCM module is installed
    Use transaction code SE11 or SM37 to view installed software components and check for HCM Portugal-related data elements or custom objects
    Affected if The SAP system contains HCM Portugal module components for human resources management in the Portuguese context
  2. Determine the SAP system version and kernel release
    Execute transaction code SM51 or log into SAP GUI to view system information and note the SAP_BASIS and SAP_ABA versions
    Affected if Running any supported SAP S/4HANA or SAP ERP system with the Portugal HCM component installed
  3. Check authorization roles for cross-company data access
    Use transaction code PFCG to review roles assigned to users, specifically examining authorization objects related to company code (OBJID: BUKRS) and personnel area access
    Affected if Roles permit access to personnel data without proper validation of company code in the user context
  4. Verify company code isolation in HCM data access transactions
    Use transaction codes like PA20 (HR Master Data Display) or PC00_M99_CWTR (Portugal-specific payroll) to test whether users can view data for company codes outside their assigned organizational assignment
    Affected if Users can retrieve or display HR records belonging to a company code different from their own user master record assignment
  5. Review custom authorization implementations for HCM Portugal transactions
    Examine custom ABAP code or authorization exits (transaction SE37) that handle company code validation in Portugal-specific HR transactions
    Affected if No explicit company code or tenant validation exists in the data retrieval logic for Portuguese HR modules

A user is affected if they run SAP S/4HANA or SAP ERP with the Portugal HCM module and their authorization configuration permits access to HR data across different company codes without proper tenant isolation checks.

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

Implement proper authorization checks to verify user permissions for the specific company code before returning data, ensuring complete tenant isolation in multi-company SAP deployments.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
28.0 hours of engineering $4,760
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-27687 — 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-2026-27687 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