Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

SugarCRM SugarCRM

Not in CISA KEVPublic exploit codeCVE-2024-58258CWE-94

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
7.2
EPSS
22.4% Top 2%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2025-07-13

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.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2024-58258: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
High · 7.2 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and integrity, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySpreads beyond the app
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.
    Changed
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.
    Low
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.
    Low
  • Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.
    None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit1 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2025-07-13
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2025-07-16
    Exploit published on Exploit-DB
    SugarCRM 14.0.0 - SSRF/Code Injection
  3. 2025-08-24
    F5 ships a rule
    SugarCRM LESS Code Injection

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2025-08-24, 42 days after the CVE was published.

2025-08-24New rule200204027Source
Added: signature 200204027 "SugarCRM LESS Code Injection" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: PHP, JavaScript. References: CVE-2024-58258.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.