CVE-2025-26654VulnerabilityPublished 8 Apr 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-26654: SAP Commerce Cloud (Public Cloud) · Cleartext Transmission

Affects SAP Commerce Cloud (Public Cloud)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Apr 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-26654, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Configure client applications and browsers to avoid sending sensitive information in the initial HTTP request; ensure all sensitive data is transmitted only after HTTPS is established. 2) Employ HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with preload lists where possible to enforce HTTPS connections and prevent downgrade attacks. 3) Use network-level protections such as VPNs or secure tunnels to protect traffic on untrusted networks, reducing the risk of interception. 4) Monitor network traffic for signs of man-in-the-middle attacks or unusual HTTP requests containing sensitive data. 5) Educate developers and administrators on secure coding and configuration practices to avoid embedding sensitive data in URLs or headers sent over HTTP. 6) Engage with SAP support to track any forthcoming patches or configuration options that may allow disabling HTTP entirely or improving redirect security. 7) Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious HTTP traffic patterns. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on client configuration, network security, and proactive monitoring tailored to the specific nature of this vulnerability.

Description

SAP Commerce Cloud (Public Cloud) does not allow to disable unencrypted HTTP (port 80) entirely, but instead allows a redirect from port 80 to 443 (HTTPS). As a result, Commerce normally communicates securely over HTTPS. However, the confidentiality and integrity of data sent on the first request before the redirect may be impacted if the client is configured to use HTTP and sends confidential data on the first request before the redirect.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-26654 is the potential exposure of sensitive data transmitted in the initial HTTP request before redirection to HTTPS. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of confidential information such as login credentials, session tokens, or personal customer data, compromising user privacy and organizational security. Integrity may also be affected if an attacker modifies the initial request, potentially leading to unauthorized actions or data corruption. Although the vulnerability does not affect system availability, the breach of confidentiality and integrity can result in significant reputational damage, regulatory penalties (especially under data protection laws like GDPR), and financial losses. Organizations relying on SAP Commerce Cloud for e-commerce operations may face increased risk of data breaches, fraud, and customer trust erosion. The attack complexity is high due to the need for network proximity, but in environments with untrusted or public networks, the risk is more pronounced. The inability to disable HTTP entirely limits the enforcement of strict transport security policies, increasing the attack surface.

CWE-319Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.
Architecture and Design
Before transmitting, encrypt the data using reliable, confidentiality-protecting cryptographic protocols.
Implementation
When using web applications with SSL, use SSL for the entire session from login to logout, not just for the initial login page.
Implementation
When designing hardware platforms, ensure that approved encryption algorithms (such as those recommended by NIST) protect paths from security critical data to trusted user applications.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Harvesting Information via API Event Monitoring (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content (opens in a new tab)
Sniff Application Code (opens in a new tab)
Interception (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 19:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-319

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats