VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jun 2026Updated 29 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-44735: opf openproject · Incorrect Authorization

Affects opf openprojectSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 17.3.2 when convenient.

Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 23:24 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 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 17.3.2, 17.4.0

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 26 Jun 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 8 Nov 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 to 17.3.2; opf/openproject to 17.4.0 or 17.3.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
opfopenproject	Affected <17.3.2	Fixed in 17.3.2
GitHubopf/openproject`pkg:github/opf/openproject`Other threats	Affected <17.3.2 <17.4.0	Fixed in 17.3.2 17.4.0

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in OpenProject versions 17.3.2 and 17.4.0. Users should upgrade to at least one of these versions to remediate the issue. No other mitigation or temporary workaround is indicated.

Description

OpenProject is open-source, web-based project management software. Prior to 17.3.2 and 17.4.0, the GET /api/v3/shares endpoint returns share details for ALL work packages in a project to any user with the view_shared_work_packages permission. The authorization check operates at the project level only — it does not verify the requesting user can actually view each individual shared work package. This allows a regular project member to discover work package IDs and subjects (including confidential titles), which users have been granted shared access, what role level was assigned (Editor, Commenter, Viewer). This vulnerability is fixed in 17.3.2 and 17.4.0.

Impact

An attacker with the view_shared_work_packages permission can access sensitive information about all shared work packages within a project, including confidential titles, work package IDs, users granted shared access, and their assigned roles. This exposure can lead to unauthorized information disclosure but does not allow modification or denial of service.

Summary

OpenProject before versions 17.3.2 and 17.4.0 has an incorrect authorization vulnerability (CWE-863) in the GET /api/v3/shares API endpoint. The authorization check is performed only at the project level, not at the individual work package level, allowing users with the view_shared_work_packages permission to access details of all shared work packages in the project, including confidential information. This vulnerability is resolved in versions 17.3.2 and 17.4.0.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/opf/openproject/security/advisories/GHSA-cfg3-f34w-9xx5 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Jul 2026, 22:23 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats