CVE-2026-26002
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedOpen OnDemand is an open-source high-performance computing portal. The Files application in OnDemand versions prior to 4.0.9 and 4.1.3 is susceptible to malicious input when navigating to a directory. This has been patched in versions 4.0.9 and 4.1.3. Versions below this remain susceptible.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThe Files application in Open OnDemand versions prior to 4.0.9 and 4.1.3 fails to properly sanitize input when users navigate to directories, allowing malicious input to be processed. This likely enables path traversal attacks where an attacker could access files or directories outside the intended web root through specially crafted directory navigation requests.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 3.1.16>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.9>= 4.1.0, < 4.1.3CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed Open OnDemand versionRun 'rpm -q ondemand' or 'yum info ondemand' to retrieve the installed package versionAffected if The version shown is less than 3.1.16, or is 4.0.0 through 4.0.8, or is 4.1.0 through 4.1.2
-
Verify Files application is enabledCheck for the presence of the Files app in the Open OnDemand portal or look for the configuration directory at /etc/ood/config/apps/files/Affected if The Files application is installed and accessible to users through the web interface
-
Confirm version matches affected rangesCompare your installed version against the known affected ranges: versions prior to 3.1.16, 4.0.0 through 4.0.8, and 4.1.0 through 4.1.2Affected if Your installed version falls within any of these ranges and the Files app is in use
You are affected if Open OnDemand is installed with a version in the affected ranges AND the Files application is available to users for directory navigation.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped3.1.164.0.94.1.3
Upgrade Open OnDemand to version 4.0.9 or 4.1.3 (or later) to apply the patch that properly sanitizes directory navigation input.
Upgrade to Open OnDemand 4.1.3 (or 4.0.9 for 4.0.x branches)
- Review the Open OnDemand upgrade documentation at https://osc.github.io/ondemand-docs/ upgrading/upgrade.html
- Backup your current Open OnDemand installation and configuration
- Upgrade to version 4.1.3 (recommended) or 4.0.9 depending on your current major version
- Verify the Files application functions correctly after upgrade
- Test that directory navigation works with various path inputs
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-26002 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-26002 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data