CVE-2026-41465
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 · uneditedProjeQtor versions 7.0 through 12.4.3 contain a path traversal vulnerability in the log file viewer at dynamicDialog.php where the logname parameter is not validated against directory traversal sequences before constructing file paths. Authenticated attackers can inject directory traversal sequences ../ into the logname parameter to read arbitrary .log files accessible to the web server process on the filesystem.
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 confidenceProjeQtor versions 7.0-12.4.3 contain a path traversal vulnerability in dynamicDialog.php where the logname parameter lacks validation against directory traversal sequences. An authenticated attacker can inject '../' sequences to escape the intended log directory and read arbitrary .log files accessible to the web server process.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Confirm ProjeQtor installationLocate the ProjeQtor installation directory, typically found in web server document root (e.g., /var/www/html/projeqtor, C:\inetpub\wwwroot\projeqtor, or similar). Look for the main ProjeQtor files such as index.php or the dynamicDialog.php file mentioned in the CVE.Affected if ProjeQtor is installed on the server
-
Identify installed ProjeQtor versionOpen the file 'view/js/projeqtor.js' or check for a 'version.php' file in the root ProjeQtor directory. The version number is typically displayed in the source code or in a dedicated version file.Affected if The installed version falls between 7.0 and 12.4.3 inclusive
-
Locate the vulnerable dynamicDialog.php fileNavigate to the ProjeQtor root directory and locate the 'dynamicDialog.php' file in the root or in a tool/ subdirectory.Affected if The file exists in the ProjeQtor installation
-
Verify web server has access to log filesCheck the web server user (e.g., www-data, apache, IIS_IUSRS) has read permissions on log files outside the intended ProjeQtor log directory.Affected if The web server process can read arbitrary .log files on the system
-
Confirm authentication is enabledVerify that ProjeQtor requires user authentication to access dynamicDialog.php. Check if the application has a functional login mechanism.Affected if The application allows authenticated users to access dynamicDialog.php (the vulnerability requires an authenticated attacker)
A system is affected if ProjeQtor versions 7.0 through 12.4.3 are installed, the dynamicDialog.php file exists, and the application permits authenticated users to make requests with the logname parameter.
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 strict input validation on the logname parameter using a whitelist approach or by verifying the resolved file path stays within the intended log directory. Apply vendor patches when released.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41465 — 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-2026-41465 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