VulnerabilityPublished 14 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-42901: SAP Application Server for ABAP (BAPI Browser) · Code Injection

Affects SAP Application Server for ABAP (BAPI Browser)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 14 Oct 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Apply SAP security patches immediately once available for the affected SAP_BASIS versions to remediate the vulnerability.
Enforce strict access controls and least privilege principles for SAP user accounts to reduce the risk of attacker authentication.
Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for SAP access to mitigate credential compromise risks.
Conduct thorough input validation and output encoding in custom SAP developments and extensions to prevent injection of malicious scripts.
Monitor SAP logs and user activities for unusual behavior indicative of exploitation attempts.
Educate SAP users about phishing and social engineering risks to reduce the likelihood of credential theft.
Restrict browser-based access to SAP BAPI explorer functionality to trusted networks or VPNs to limit exposure.
Use web application firewalls (WAF) with rules targeting XSS payloads in SAP web interfaces.
Regularly review and update SAP security configurations and perform vulnerability assessments.
Coordinate with SAP support and security advisories for updates and best practices.

Description

CVE-2025-42901 is a medium-severity vulnerability in SAP Application Server for ABAP's BAPI Browser that allows authenticated attackers to store malicious JavaScript payloads. These payloads can execute in the browsers of users accessing the affected BAPI explorer functionality, potentially compromising confidentiality and integrity. The vulnerability does not impact availability and requires attacker authentication but no user interaction. It affects multiple SAP_BASIS versions from 700 through 816. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. The CVSS score is 5.4, reflecting moderate risk due to ease of exploitation and limited impact scope. European organizations using affected SAP versions should prioritize patching and implement strict access controls and input validation to mitigate risks. Countries with significant SAP deployments and critical industries relying on SAP ERP systems are most at risk.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily to the confidentiality and integrity of SAP ERP data and user sessions. Exploitation could lead to session hijacking, unauthorized data manipulation, or phishing attacks leveraging the trusted SAP interface. Given SAP's widespread use in European industries such as manufacturing, finance, utilities, and public sector, successful exploitation could disrupt business processes and lead to data breaches. Although availability is unaffected, the loss of data integrity and confidentiality could result in regulatory non-compliance, reputational damage, and financial losses. The requirement for attacker authentication limits exposure but insider threats or compromised credentials could be leveraged. Organizations with extensive SAP landscapes and remote access to SAP portals are particularly vulnerable. The lack of known exploits currently reduces immediate risk but proactive remediation is critical to prevent future attacks.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (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 21 Oct 2025, 12:00 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats