CVE-2026-28116
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 · uneditedImproper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Emilia Projects Progress Planner allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Progress Planner: from n/a through 1.9.0.
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 confidenceA stored Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Emilia Projects Progress Planner allows attackers to inject malicious JavaScript code through user input fields. The injected payload is persisted on the server and executes whenever other users view the affected content, enabling session hijacking, credential theft, or defacement.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Confirm Emilia Projects Progress Planner installationLocate and identify the installed instance of Emilia Projects Progress Planner in your environment. Determine the installed version by checking application files, configuration, or the product's about/version page.Affected if The application is present and the version falls within any affected range or cannot be determined to be patched.
-
Identify user input mechanismsMap all user-controllable input fields in the application such as project names, task descriptions, comments, progress updates, or any free-text entry forms.Affected if User-supplied data can be entered and stored within the application.
-
Verify output encoding is appliedInspect how stored user inputs are rendered in web pages by examining the application source code, templates, or response output. Look for proper HTML encoding, escaping of special characters, or use of safe API methods when user data is displayed.Affected if Stored user data is rendered in web pages without proper output encoding or sanitization.
-
Check for Content Security PolicyInspect HTTP response headers for the presence of Content-Security-Policy or Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only headers. Evaluate if the policy restricts inline scripts and sources.Affected if CSP headers are absent or configured in a way that allows inline script execution.
A user is affected if Emilia Projects Progress Planner is installed and user-supplied input is stored and displayed without proper output encoding, enabling script injection.
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.
From vendor dataImplement context-aware output encoding for all user-supplied data displayed in web pages and apply input validation/sanitization (e.g., HTML encoding, allowlist validation) on the server side before storing data.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-28116 — 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-2026-28116 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