VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-23625: opf openproject · Cross-site Scripting

Affects opf openprojectSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 16.6.5 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.6.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 19 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 opf openproject to 16.6.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
opfopenproject	Affected >=16.3.0 <16.6.5	Fixed in 16.6.5
GitHubopf/openproject`pkg:github/opf/openproject`Other threats	Affected >=16.3.0 <=16.6.4	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade OpenProject installations to version 16.6.5 or later, where the vulnerability is addressed by reinstating the X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff header and improved content security policies. For organizations unable to upgrade immediately, it is critical to manually configure the web server or proxy to add the X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff HTTP response header to all OpenProject traffic. This header prevents browsers from MIME-type sniffing, reducing the risk of XSS exploitation. Additionally, organizations should audit project and subproject names for suspicious or unexpected HTML content and restrict permissions to create or modify project names to trusted users only. Implementing strict Content Security Policies (CSP) that limit script execution sources can further mitigate risk. Regular monitoring of OpenProject logs for unusual activity and educating users about phishing and XSS risks will also help reduce the likelihood and impact of exploitation.

Description

CVE-2026-23625 is a high-severity stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability affecting OpenProject versions 16.3.0 through 16.6.4. The flaw arises from improper sanitization of user-controlled project names rendered in the Roadmap view, allowing malicious HTML injection. Exploitation requires authenticated access and user interaction but can lead to full compromise of confidentiality and integrity within affected sessions. The vulnerability is mitigated in versions 16.6.5 and later by enforcing the X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff header and improved content security policies.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of project management data. Exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary scripts in the browsers of authenticated users, leading to session hijacking, credential theft, or unauthorized actions within OpenProject. This could result in leakage of sensitive project information, manipulation of project data, or disruption of project workflows. Organizations relying on OpenProject for critical project management, especially in sectors like government, finance, and technology, may face operational and reputational damage. The vulnerability's requirement for authenticated access limits exposure but does not eliminate risk, as insider threats or compromised accounts could be leveraged. Additionally, the stored nature of the XSS means that malicious payloads persist and affect multiple users, increasing the attack surface. Given the widespread use of OpenProject in European enterprises and public institutions, the impact could be broad if unpatched systems remain in use.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (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 26 Jan 2026, 20:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats