Several administrative actions do not sufficiently validate whether a request was intentionally initiated by the authenticated user. In particular, the DBUpdateLogCleanUp action can be triggered through a GET request without validating a ChallengeToken. An unauthenticated remote attacker can therefore cause the browser of an authenticated administrator to execute the cleanup action by embedding a crafted request in a malicious web page. Successful exploitation can delete existing DBUpdate log entries. This may reduce the availability of diagnostic and historical information used for troubleshooting and auditing. The impact is limited to DBUpdate log entries that exist at the time the forged request is processed.
Additional administrative endpoints were identified that do not validate a ChallengeToken. Some of these endpoints can trigger administrative actions such as deploying or synchronizing already existing configuration. They do not allow an attacker to introduce arbitrary new configuration through the CSRF request itself.
Export and read-only endpoints were also identified without ChallengeToken validation. While these endpoints may be triggered through a forged cross-site request, the response content remains subject to the browser's same-origin restrictions and is not automatically exposed to the attacker. Therefore, no direct confidentiality impact has been demonstrated for these endpoints.
This issue affects OTRS:
* 7.0.X
* 8.0.X
* 2023.X
* 2024.X
* 2025.X
* 2026.X before 2026.7.X
Please note that ((OTRS)) Community Edition 6.x and before are vulnerable. Products based on the ((OTRS)) Community Edition also very likely to be affected
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Update to latest version of OTRS (2026.7.1 (from the CVE record's solution, OTRS AG). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it