CVE-2026-32703
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 · uneditedOpenProject is an open-source, web-based project management software. In versions prior to 16.6.9, 17.0.6, 17.1.3, and 17.2.1, the Repositories module did not properly escape filenames displayed from repositories. This allowed an attacker with push access into the repository to create commits with filenames that included HTML code that was injected in the page without proper sanitation. This allowed a persisted XSS attack against all members of this project that accessed the repositories page to display a changeset where the maliciously crafted file was deleted. Versions 16.6.9, 17.0.6, 17.1.3, and 17.2.1 fix the issue.
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 · high confidenceStored XSS vulnerability in OpenProject's Repositories module where filenames from repository commits are not properly escaped. An attacker with push access can inject HTML/JavaScript into filenames, which executes when other users view the changeset where the malicious file is deleted.
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< 16.6.9>= 17.0.0, < 17.0.6>= 17.1.0, < 17.1.3= 17.2.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
-
Identify installed OpenProject versionAccess the OpenProject admin interface and navigate to Administration > About, or run the command: openproject run rails runner "puts OpenProject::VERSION" from the server consoleAffected if The installed version falls into any of these ranges: < 16.6.9, >= 17.0.0 and < 17.0.6, >= 17.1.0 and < 17.1.3, or exactly 17.2.0
-
Verify Repositories module is enabledLog in as an administrator, go to Administration > Modules, and confirm the Repositories module is listed as activeAffected if The Repositories module is enabled and the version is in the affected ranges above
-
Examine repository commit history for suspicious filenamesNavigate to the repository Changesets or Commits view in the Repositories module. Inspect the list of changed files, particularly in delete operations, for filenames containing HTML tags (<script>, <img>, <iframe>, or other HTML elements) or JavaScript patterns (javascript:, onload=, onerror=)Affected if Any commits display filenames with unescaped HTML or JavaScript code that could execute in a browser
A user is affected if their OpenProject version is in the vulnerable ranges AND the Repositories module is enabled AND malicious filenames exist in the repository commit history.
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 · scoped16.6.917.0.617.1.3
Upgrade to OpenProject versions 16.6.9, 17.0.6, 17.1.3, or 17.2.1 which contain proper filename escaping in the Repositories module.
Upgrade to OpenProject 16.6.9, 17.0.6, 17.1.3, or 17.2.1 (17.2.1 recommended for latest features and fixes)
- 1. Back up your OpenProject database and configuration before upgrading.
- 2. Identify your current OpenProject version by checking the administration panel or running `openproject --version`.
- 3. If running version < 16.6.9: Upgrade to version 16.6.9 or later.
- 4. If running version 17.0.x (where x < 6): Upgrade to version 17.0.6 or later.
- 5. If running version 17.1.x (where x < 3): Upgrade to version 17.1.3 or later.
- 6. If running version 17.2.0: Upgrade to version 17.2.1.
- 7. After upgrading, verify the Repositories module properly escapes HTML in filenames by testing with a commit containing a filename like `<script>alert(1)</script>`.
- 8. Confirm the fix is applied by accessing the repositories page and ensuring the malicious filename is rendered as text, not executed.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-32703 — 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-2026-32703 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