VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jan 2026Updated 13 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-22600: opf openproject · Information Exposure

Affects opf openprojectSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 16.6.4 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.6.4

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

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

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade openproject and opf/openproject to 16.6.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
opfopenproject	Affected <16.6.4	Fixed in 16.6.4
GitHubopf/openproject`pkg:github/opf/openproject`Other threats	Affected <16.6.4	Fixed in 16.6.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations using OpenProject should immediately upgrade to version 16.6.4 or later to remediate this vulnerability. If upgrading is not feasible, applying the official manual patch is essential. Administrators should audit and restrict upload permissions to trusted users only, minimizing the number of accounts that can upload attachments to exportable containers. Implement strict file type validation and scanning on uploaded files to detect and block malicious SVG files disguised as PNGs. Monitoring and logging of PDF export activities and attachment uploads can help detect suspicious behavior. Network segmentation and least privilege principles should be enforced to limit the impact of any successful exploitation. Additionally, organizations should review and harden ImageMagick configurations to disable or restrict the use of potentially dangerous coders like text: coder. Regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on file upload functionalities can help identify similar risks proactively.

Description

OpenProject is an open-source, web-based project management software. A Local File Read (LFR) vulnerability exists in the work package PDF export functionality of OpenProject prior to version 16.6.4. By uploading a specially crafted SVG file (disguised as a PNG) as a work package attachment, an attacker can exploit the backend image processing engine (ImageMagick). When the work package is exported to PDF, the backend attempts to resize the image, triggering the ImageMagick text: coder. This allows an attacker to read arbitrary local files that the application user has permissions to access (e.g., /etc/passwd, all project configuration files, private project data, etc.). The attack requires permissions to upload attachments to a container that can be exported to PDF, such as a work package. The issue has been patched in version 16.6.4. Those who are unable to upgrade may apply the patch manually.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2026-22600 is significant due to the potential exposure of sensitive internal data, including project details, configuration files, and system information. This exposure can lead to further attacks such as privilege escalation, lateral movement, or targeted espionage. Organizations in sectors relying heavily on project management tools—such as government agencies, engineering firms, software development companies, and research institutions—may face confidentiality breaches that compromise intellectual property or sensitive operational data. The vulnerability could also undermine trust in collaborative environments and lead to regulatory compliance issues under GDPR if personal or sensitive data is exposed. Additionally, the ability to read arbitrary files may allow attackers to gather information for subsequent attacks, increasing the overall risk posture. The requirement for upload permissions limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with many users or third-party collaborators.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (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 17 Jan 2026, 07:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats