VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026Updated 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-31974: opf openproject · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects opf openprojectSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.0 Low : upgrade to 17.2.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.0Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% 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:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 30 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

Upgrade OpenProject to version 17.2.0 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability is fixed.
Restrict access to OpenProject administrative functions to trusted users only, minimizing the number of accounts with the ability to exploit the vulnerability.
Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to limit the OpenProject server's ability to initiate outbound connections to internal services, reducing the impact of SSRF attempts.
Monitor logs for unusual POST requests to /admin/settings/mail_notifications and webhook creation activities that specify unexpected hosts or ports.
Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting internal IP ranges.
Regularly audit user privileges and revoke unnecessary administrative rights to reduce the attack surface.
Conduct internal penetration testing to verify that SSRF protections are effective and no other similar vulnerabilities exist.

Description

CVE-2026-31974 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in OpenProject versions prior to 17.2.0. It arises from the SMTP test endpoint and webhook functionality allowing attackers with access to specify arbitrary host and port values. This enables attackers to perform internal network reconnaissance by detecting reachable IP addresses and open ports based on response timing and error differences. The vulnerability requires authenticated access and does not directly impact data integrity or availability. It has a low CVSS score of 3.0 due to its limited impact and exploitation complexity. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. The issue is fixed in OpenProject version 17.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-31974 is the exposure of internal network infrastructure to authenticated attackers. By enabling internal host and port scanning, attackers can identify critical internal services, potentially facilitating lateral movement, targeted attacks, or further exploitation of internal vulnerabilities. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise data confidentiality, integrity, or availability, the information gained can significantly aid attackers in planning more damaging attacks. Organizations using vulnerable OpenProject versions risk unauthorized internal network reconnaissance, which is especially concerning in environments with sensitive internal services or segmented networks. The requirement for authenticated access limits the threat to insiders or compromised user accounts, but the risk remains significant in large organizations with many users or weak access controls. Since no known exploits are in the wild, the immediate risk is moderate, but the vulnerability should be addressed promptly to prevent future exploitation.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/opf/openproject/security/advisories/GHSA-9wr7-j98g-2jh3 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Mar 2026, 02:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats