VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-42934: SAP S/4HANA (Supplier invoice) · HTTP Request/Response Splitting

Affects SAP S/4HANA (Supplier invoice)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 12 Aug 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SAP_SE SAP S/4HANA (Supplier invoice)	Affected 103 – 109 7 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should take the following specific actions: 1) Immediately review and restrict user privileges to ensure that only trusted personnel have access to the Supplier Invoice module, minimizing the risk of exploitation by low-privilege users. 2) Implement strict input validation and sanitization controls on all inputs that influence HTTP headers or trusted site configurations, potentially through custom SAP security configurations or middleware filtering. 3) Monitor and audit changes to the trusted sites list regularly to detect unauthorized modifications promptly. 4) Apply SAP security notes and patches as soon as they become available, even though none are currently linked, maintaining close communication with SAP support channels. 5) Employ network-level controls such as web application firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect and block CRLF injection attempts in HTTP headers. 6) Conduct security awareness training for users with access to SAP modules to recognize and report suspicious activities that could indicate exploitation attempts. 7) Consider implementing additional logging and alerting mechanisms within SAP to capture anomalous configuration changes or injection attempts.

Description

SAP S/4HANA Supplier invoice is vulnerable to CRLF Injection. An attacker with user-level privileges can bypass the allowlist and insert untrusted sites into the 'Trusted Sites' configuration by injecting line feed (LF) characters into application inputs. This vulnerability has a low impact on the application's integrity and no impact on confidentiality or availability.

Impact

For European organizations using SAP S/4HANA, particularly those relying on the Supplier Invoice module, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk. The primary impact is on the integrity of the application’s configuration, specifically the trusted sites list. If exploited, attackers could insert malicious sites into the trusted list, potentially enabling further attacks that leverage trust relationships, such as redirecting users to malicious sites or bypassing security controls that rely on trusted site configurations. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the integrity compromise could lead to reputational damage, compliance issues (especially under GDPR if user data is indirectly affected), and potential financial losses if attackers use this foothold for fraud or further exploitation. Given SAP’s widespread use in European enterprises across sectors like manufacturing, finance, and public administration, the vulnerability could have broad implications if not addressed. However, the requirement for user-level privileges and the absence of user interaction reduce the likelihood of widespread exploitation without insider access or compromised credentials.

CWE-113Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting') (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.
Implementation · Input Validation
Construct HTTP headers very carefully, avoiding the use of non-validated input data.
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. If an input does not strictly conform to specifications, reject it or transform it into something that conforms.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Splitting (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Aug 2025, 02:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-113

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats