High Injection

CVE-2026-32698 — OpenProject has a SQL Injection via Custom Field Name that can be chained to Remote Code Execution

OpenProject is an open-source, web-based project management software. Versions prior to 16.6.9, 17.0.6, 17.1.3, and 17.2.1 are vulnerable to an SQL injection attack via a custom field's name. When that custom field was used in a Cost Report, the custom field's name was injected into the SQL query without proper sanitation. This allowed an attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands during the generation of a Cost Report. As custom fields can only be generated by users with full administrator privileges, the attack surface is somewhat reduced. Together with another bug in the Repositories_module, that used the project identifier without sanitation to generate the checkout path for a git repository in the filesystem, this allowed an attacker to checkout a git repository to an arbitrarily chosen path on the server. If the checkout is done within certain paths within the OpenProject application, upon the next restart of the application, this allows the attacker to inject ruby code into the application. As the project identifier cannot be manually edited to any string containing special characters like dots or slashes, this needs to be changed via the SQL injection described above. Versions 16.6.9, 17.0.6, 17.1.3, and 17.2.1 fix the issue.

Published Mar 18, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Low

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.

How the score was calculated

EPSS 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+6
Technical severity (high)+6

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation

Not confirmed

Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.

EPSS FIRST

0.45%

ahead of 37% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026

Affects

Openproject

CVSS base

7.2

High · 3 source(s)

Prioritization reference: 9.1 provisional

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script the kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Openproject Openproject, Opf Openproject).
No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Openproject	Openproject	< 16.6.9≥ 17.0.0 and < 17.0.6≥ 17.1.0 and < 17.1.3version 17.2.0	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database
Opf	Openproject	version < 16.6.9version >= 17.0.0, < 17.0.6version >= 17.1.0, < 17.1.3version >= 17.2.0, < 17.2.1	Vulnerable	CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector

Network

Attack complexity

Low

Privileges required

High

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
9.1	CVSS 3.1	Critical	2.3	6.0	security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.1	CVSS 3.1	Critical	—	—	GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
7.2	CVSS 3.1	High	1.2	5.9	nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Scoring entities (NIST, CNA, ADP) score independently; each score is shown with its origin. For prioritization we use 9.1 (security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database) as a conservative provisional reference — not a definitive official score.

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-89 · SQL Injection

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.45%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.

web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

2026
Affected products added · opf/openproject
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
SSVC assessment updated
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Record published
Oct 13, 2026
CVSS changed · 7.2
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Source status changed · → Analyzed
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Record created in this database
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVE published
Mar 18, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

1 on the record

github.com/opf/openproject/security/advisories/GHSA-jqhf-rf9x-9rhx
Vendor Advisory, x_refsource_CONFIRM, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Openproject
every CVE for this vendor

Injection
same class

CWE-89
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

Critical CVE-2026-52785 OpenProject SQL Injection in Timestamps Parameter (CVE-2026-52785) Jun 26, 2026
Medium CVE-2026-52781 OpenProject: Stored XSS on openproject.example.com through /api/v3/projects/{project}/work_packages via POST parameter "description" Jun 26, 2026
Medium CVE-2026-52779 OpenProject: Cross-project authorization bypass allows deleting public Calendar and Team Planner queries from unauthorized projects Jun 26, 2026
High CVE-2026-52783 OpenProject: Information Disclosure (cleartext storage of data) on localhost through memcached via Others "storage.<id>.httpx_access_token" leads to Sensitive Data Exposure Jun 26, 2026
Critical CVE-2026-52782 OpenProject: IDOR through /projects/<A>/settings/project_storages/<A_ps_id> via PATCH parameter "storages_project_storage[project_folder_id]" leads to Access to Unauthorized Resources Jun 26, 2026
Critical CVE-2026-52780 OpenProject: Cache store poisoning leads to Remote Code Execution (RCE) Jun 26, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-32698 is "OpenProject has a SQL Injection via Custom Field Name that can be chained to Remote Code Execution", rated High. It affects Openproject (Openproject); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.2 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.45% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.