| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists when Microsoft Edge does not properly enforce cross-domain policies, which could allow an attacker to access information from one domain and inject it into another domain.In a web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a website that is used to attempt to exploit the vulnerability, aka 'Microsoft Edge Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability'. |
| An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists when the Windows Data Sharing Service improperly handles file operations, aka "Windows Data Sharing Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability." This affects Windows Server 2016, Windows 10, Windows Server 2019, Windows 10 Servers. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2019-0571, CVE-2019-0572, CVE-2019-0574. |
| An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists in Microsoft Edge Browser Broker COM object, aka "Microsoft Edge Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability." This affects Microsoft Edge. |
| An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists in the Microsoft XmlDocument class that could allow an attacker to escape from the AppContainer sandbox in the browser, aka "Microsoft XmlDocument Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability." This affects Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2019, Windows Server 2016, Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Windows 10 Servers. |
| An elevation of privilege exists in Windows COM Desktop Broker, aka "Windows COM Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability." This affects Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows Server 2019, Windows Server 2016, Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Windows 10 Servers. |
| Order processing in SAP ERP Sales (corrected in SAP_APPL 6.0, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18) and S4HANA Sales (corrected in S4CORE 1.0, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04) does not execute the required authorization checks for an authenticated user, which can result in an escalation of privileges. |
| Transaction Management in SAP Treasury and Risk Management (corrected in S4CORE versions 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04 and EA-FINSERV versions 6.0, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 8.0) does not perform necessary authorization checks for functionalities that require user identity. |
| Transaction Management in SAP Treasury and Risk Management (corrected in S4CORE versions 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04 and EA-FINSERV versions 6.0, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 8.0) does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. |
| SAP NetWeaver Process Integration (B2B Toolkit), before versions 1.0 and 2.0, does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, allowing the import of B2B table content that leads to Missing Authorization Check. |
| SAP Kernel (ABAP Debugger), versions KRNL32NUC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, KRNL32UC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, KRNL64NUC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, 7.49, KRNL64UC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, 7.49, 7.73, KERNEL 7.21, 7.49, 7.53, 7.73, 7.75, 7.76, 7.77, allows a user to execute “Go to statement” without possessing the authorization S_DEVELOP DEBUG 02, resulting in Missing Authorization Check |
| SAP ERP HCM (SAP_HRCES) , version 3, does not perform necessary authorization checks for a report that reads payroll data of employees in a certain area. Due to this under certain conditions, the user that once had authorization to payroll data of an employee, which was later revoked, may retain access to the same data. |
| Read of RFC destination does not always perform necessary authorization checks, resulting in escalation of privileges to access information on RFC destinations on managed systems and SAP Solution Manager system (ST-PI, before versions 2008_1_700, 2008_1_710, and 740). |
| SAP Treasury and Risk Management (EA-FINSERV 6.0, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18 and 8.0; S4CORE 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03), does not perform necessary authorization checks for authorization objects T_DEAL_DP and T_DEAL_PD , resulting in escalation of privileges. |
| ABAP BASIS function modules INST_CREATE_R3_RFC_DEST, INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFCDEST, and INST_CREATE_TCPIP_RFC_DEST in SAP BASIS (fixed in versions 7.0 to 7.02, 7.10 to 7.30, 7.31, 7.40, 7.50 to 7.53) do not perform necessary authorization checks in all circumstances for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. |
| Banking services from SAP 9.0 (FSAPPL version 5) and SAP S/4HANA Financial Products Subledger (S4FPSL, version 1) performs an inadequate authorization check for an authenticated user, potentially resulting in escalation of privileges. |
| ABAP Server of SAP NetWeaver and ABAP Platform fail to perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. This has been corrected in the following versions: KRNL32NUC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, KRNL32UC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, KRNL64NUC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, 7.49, 7.74, KRNL64UC 7.21, 7.21EXT, 7.22, 7.22EXT, 7.49, 7.73, 7.74, 8.04, KERNEL 7.21, 7.45, 7.49, 7.53, 7.73, 7.74, 7.75, 8.04. |
| SAP Disclosure Management, version 10.01, does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. |
| Customizing functionality of SAP NetWeaver AS ABAP Platform (fixed in versions from 7.0 to 7.02, from 7.10 to 7.11, 7.30, 7.31, 7.40, from 7.50 to 7.53, from 7.74 to 7.75) does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. |
| Under some circumstances, masterdata maintenance in SAP BW/4HANA (fixed in DW4CORE version 1.0 (SP08)) does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. |
| An issue is present in Apache ZooKeeper 1.0.0 to 3.4.13 and 3.5.0-alpha to 3.5.4-beta. ZooKeeper’s getACL() command doesn’t check any permission when retrieves the ACLs of the requested node and returns all information contained in the ACL Id field as plaintext string. DigestAuthenticationProvider overloads the Id field with the hash value that is used for user authentication. As a consequence, if Digest Authentication is in use, the unsalted hash value will be disclosed by getACL() request for unauthenticated or unprivileged users. |
