VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30234: opf openproject · Path Traversal

Affects opf openprojectSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 17.2.0 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 17.2.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 11 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 17.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
opfopenproject	Affected <17.2.0	Fixed in 17.2.0
GitHubopf/openproject`pkg:github/opf/openproject`Other threats	Affected <17.2.0	Fixed in 17.2.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should upgrade OpenProject to version 17.2.0 or later, where the issue is fixed. Until upgrading, restrict BCF import permissions to trusted users only and monitor import activities closely. Implement strict access controls and auditing on OpenProject user roles to minimize the number of users with BCF import rights. Additionally, consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious .bcf archive uploads containing path traversal patterns. Regularly review server file permissions to ensure the OpenProject application user has minimal read access only to necessary directories, limiting the scope of potential data exposure. Conduct internal security awareness training to reduce the risk of credential compromise for users with elevated permissions. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to quickly address any exploitation attempts.

Description

OpenProject is an open-source, web-based project management software. Prior to 17.2.0, an authenticated project member with BCF import permissions can upload a crafted .bcf archive where the <Snapshot> value in markup.bcf is manipulated to contain an absolute or traversal local path (for example: /etc/passwd or ../../../../etc/passwd). During import, this untrusted <Snapshot> value is used as file.path during attachment processing. As a result, local filesystem content can be read outside the intended ZIP scope. This results in an Arbitrary File Read (AFR) within the read permissions of the OpenProject application user. This vulnerability is fixed in 17.2.0.

Impact

This vulnerability allows attackers with authenticated BCF import permissions to read arbitrary files on the server hosting OpenProject, potentially exposing sensitive configuration files, credentials, or other confidential data. The impact is primarily on confidentiality, as integrity and availability are not affected. Organizations using vulnerable versions risk unauthorized disclosure of sensitive internal information, which could facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation or lateral movement. Since exploitation requires authentication and specific permissions, the risk is limited to insiders or compromised accounts. However, in environments where OpenProject is widely used for project management, this could lead to leakage of intellectual property or personal data. The medium severity rating reflects the balance between the potential data exposure and the exploitation prerequisites. The vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against organizations relying on OpenProject for collaboration, especially if user accounts are compromised or insider threats exist.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/opf/openproject/security/advisories/GHSA-q8c5-vpmm-xrxv (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Mar 2026, 16:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats