Threats / SugarCRM / CVE-2023-22952
CVE-2023-22952
· EUVD no mirror located
· GCVE no mirror located
Verified 2026-09-19
SugarCRM Multiple Products vulnerability
SugarCRM multiple products contain a remote code execution vulnerability in EmailTemplates allowing custom PHP code injection via specially crafted requests.
Verdict
Today item — known-exploited.
An unauthenticated or low-privileged attacker can inject arbitrary PHP code through EmailTemplates functionality, achieving remote code execution on affected SugarCRM instances. Active exploitation in the wild with high EPSS score indicates immediate risk.
CISA KEV Yes · 2023-02-024EPSS 0.80139 (verify live)5CVSS 8.8 (CISA)3CISA SSVC Exploitation: active · Automatable: no · Impact: total3Exploit Weaponized · public exploit · Metasploit module · nuclei template12
01
Is it exploitable?
— the evidence, ranked above the scoreReported exploitation
29 independent public reports of in-the-wild exploitation are cataloged.Distinct reporting sources (vendor, incident response, government); open them for the underlying claims.
Exploited in the wild
Listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2023-02-02).
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.80139 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
CVSS 8.8 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) · Affected: SugarCRM, Multiple Products. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.CVSS — CISA-assigned via the ADP container (CVE.org), version 3.1; the CNA left no metrics, so CISA's own score is used ahead of NVD.
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-20 Improper Input Validation.CWE assignment from the public NVD record (may be stale); the weakness class drives how the flaw is exploited.
CISA SSVC (triage disposition)
Exploitation: active · Automatable: no · Technical Impact: totalCISA's own stakeholder-specific triage inputs, published in the CVE record (CISA Coordinator role). NOTE: this is CISA's three decision points; the final Act/Attend/Track decision also requires a Mission & Well-being input not published here, so no overall decision is asserted.
Currency of the record
CISA added this to its KEV catalog 22 days after the CVE record was published.KEV lag = CISA-KEV dateAdded − CVE.org datePublished; a floor on how long the known-exploited flaw sat in the public record before the federal catalog listed it. Severity/weakness here is CNA- or CISA-assigned (current at disclosure), independent of NVD's analysis backlog.
Public exploit available
Public exploit tooling is catalogued for this CVE (a functional/weaponized public exploit). Catalog entries: Metasploit module, nuclei template. We link the catalog page(s) only — no payload or code is hosted or restated here.Link, never host — the catalog page is the source; basicsecurity.net does not redistribute payloads.
02
Who’s exploiting it?
— attribution turns risk into urgencyAttribution not established
No confirmed (advisory-backed) threat-actor attribution is established for this record. Absence of a named actor is not absence of compromise — see Coverage & confidence.
03
Why it matters
— the attack path, told twice: adversary, then board1
Front door — unauthenticated access narrative 1
Attacker
I craft a malicious request targeting the EmailTemplates endpoint with embedded PHP code.
Business
The organization's SugarCRM instance becomes a beachhead for unauthorized system access and data exfiltration.
2
Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2
Attacker
I execute arbitrary PHP commands on the server to establish persistence and lateral movement.
Business
Attackers gain sustained control over customer relationship data, email communications, and integrated business systems.
3
Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3
Attacker
I escalate privileges and pivot to connected infrastructure or databases.
Business
Breach scope expands beyond CRM to enterprise networks, increasing incident response costs and regulatory exposure.
04
What to do
— defensible action- Remediate per the vendor advisory — confirm the fixed build for your version and verify exposure.1
Say it to the boardA vulnerability with this evidence profile is a defensible budget line, not a backlog ticket — fund the change against the proof above.
05
Coverage & confidence
— what we know, and what we don’tEstablished (cited)
Coverage gaps — stated, not hidden
Disclosure & credit2
Catalogued by mitreCNA
Credited with finding itNo finder is named in the public CVE record or the scanned vendor advisory — attribution scoped to the sources checked.
Found an error? Propose a correction.
A correction is a cited counter-claim — it must cite a source,
gets reviewed by a second human, and is never auto-applied. See the
correction convention and our identity
npub1j7gt9ky7sfcrjn8jjee6693dkzvk4rahs0fk2suu7968dfns62zs3mqm3y.