CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGHpublic exploit

CVE-2024-58258

CVE-2024-58258

SugarCRM before 13.0.4 and 14.x before 14.0.1 allows SSRF in the API module because a limited type of code injection can occur.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, mitre

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

14%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

sugarcrm

sugarcrm

CVSS base

7.2

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

sugarcrm

Products (1)

sugarcrm

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.2CVSS 3.1HIGH——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-94

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

  • T1027.006Obfuscated Files or Information: HTML Smuggling
  • T1027.009Obfuscated Files or Information: Embedded Payloads
  • T1564.009Hide Artifacts: Resource Forking

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Indexed by

exploit dbpoc in github

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • sugarcrmevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-94other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.