EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 9.4Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
Update to latest version of OTRS (2026.7.1 (from the CVE record's solution, OTRS AG) — apply it.
The HTTP Basic Authentication modules in ((OTRS)) Community Edition 6 and prior accept the authenticated username from either the REMOTE_USER or HTTP_REMOTE_USER environment variable. In CGI and mod_perl based deployments, HTTP request headers may be mapped to corresponding HTTP_* environment variables. As a result, an unauthenticated remote attacker can supply a crafted Remote-User request header which is exposed to the application as HTTP_REMOTE_USER. When HTTP Basic Authentication is configured as the authentication backend, OTRS trusts this value as an already authenticated username and does not perform an additional password verification. An attacker may therefore authenticate through the Generic Interface as an existing agent or customer user without knowing the corresponding credentials.
The resulting privileges depend on the account being impersonated. Successful exploitation may allow access to confidential information and modification of data or configuration with the permissions of the affected user. Exploitation requires HTTP Basic Authentication to be configured as an authentication backend and a web server environment in which attacker-controlled HTTP headers are exposed through the corresponding HTTP_* environment variables.
OTRS 7 and later are not affected by this attack vector due to the use of Mojolicious/Hypnotoad and does not expose arbitrary request headers through %ENV in the manner required for exploitation. The supported REMOTE_USER mechanism additionally requires validation through the configured SSO shared secret. The unused HTTP_REMOTE_USER fallback has nevertheless been removed as a security-hardening measure.
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
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.4 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend 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 at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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