| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| SAP NetWeaver Application Server ABAP and ABAP Platform allows an authenticated, low-privileged user to perform background Remote Function Calls without the required S_RFC authorization in certain cases. This can result in a high impact on integrity and availability, and no impact on the confidentiality of the application. |
| The SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform allows an authenticated attacker with high privileges to insert malicious URL within the application. Upon successful exploitation, the victim may click on this malicious URL, resulting in an unvalidated redirect to the attacker-controlled domain and subsequently download the malicious content. This vulnerability has a high impact on the confidentiality and integrity of the application, with no effect on the availability of the application. |
| The BSP applications allow an unauthenticated user to manipulate user-controlled URL parameters that are not sufficiently validated. This could result in unvalidated redirection to attacker-controlled websites, leading to a low impact on confidentiality and integrity, and no impact on the availability of the application. |
| SAP BusinessObjects BI Platform allows an unauthenticated attacker to craft a specific network request to the trusted endpoint that breaks the authentication, which prevents the legitimate users from accessing the platform. As a result, it has a high impact on the availability but no impact on the confidentiality and integrity. |
| An authenticated attacker in SAP CRM and SAP S/4HANA (Scripting Editor) could exploit a flaw in a generic function module call and execute unauthorized critical functionalities, which includes the ability to execute an arbitrary SQL statement. This leads to a full database compromise with high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. |
| In ABAP based SAP systems a remote enabled function module does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user resulting in disclosure of system information.This has low impact on confidentiality. Integrity and availability are not impacted. |
| SAP BusinessObjects BI Platform allows an unauthenticated attacker to send specially crafted requests that could cause the Content Management Server (CMS) to crash and automatically restart. By repeatedly submitting these requests, the attacker could induce a persistent service disruption, rendering the CMS completely unavailable. Successful exploitation results in a high impact on availability, while confidentiality and integrity remain unaffected. |
| Due to missing authorization check in SAP NetWeaver Application Server ABAP and SAP S/4HANA, an authenticated attacker could access a specific transaction code and modify the text data in the system. This vulnerability has a high impact on integrity of the application with no effect on the confidentiality and availability. |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| Not used |
| A flaw was found in Keycloak. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by modifying the organization ID and target email within a legitimate invitation token's JSON Web Token (JWT) payload. This lack of cryptographic signature verification allows the attacker to successfully self-register into an unauthorized organization, leading to unauthorized access. |
| A flaw was found in Keycloak. A vulnerability exists in the jwt-authorization-grant flow where the server fails to verify if an Identity Provider (IdP) is enabled before issuing tokens. The issuer lookup mechanism (lookupIdentityProviderFromIssuer) retrieves the IdP configuration but does not filter for isEnabled=false. If an administrator disables an IdP (e.g., due to a compromise or offboarding), an entity possessing that IdP's signing key can still generate valid JWT assertions that Keycloak accepts, resulting in the issuance of valid access tokens. |
| A flaw was found in Keycloak. A significant Broken Access Control vulnerability exists in the UserManagedPermissionService (UMA Protection API). When updating or deleting a UMA policy associated with multiple resources, the authorization check only verifies the caller's ownership against the first resource in the policy's list. This allows a user (Owner A) who owns one resource (RA) to update a shared policy and modify authorization rules for other resources (e.g., RB) in that same policy, even if those other resources are owned by a different user (Owner B). This constitutes a horizontal privilege escalation. |
