CVE-2026-22200
Enhancesoft Osticket 1.17 – 1.17.7
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-22200 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Enhancesoft Osticket. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 0.6% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Enhancesoft osTicket versions 1.18.x prior to 1.18.3 and 1.17.x prior to 1.17.7 contain an arbitrary file read vulnerability in the ticket PDF export functionality. The flaw arises when rich-text HTML containing PHP filter expressions is insufficiently sanitized before processing by the mPDF library, allowing the generated PDF to embed contents of arbitrary server files as bitmap images readable by the osTicket application user. The issue is tracked as CWE-74 and carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 8.7 reflecting network-accessible confidentiality impact without authentication requirements.
A remote attacker can exploit the weakness in default configurations that permit guest ticket creation or self-registration. By submitting a crafted ticket and triggering PDF export, the attacker obtains disclosure of sensitive local files such as configuration data or source code without needing prior credentials or elevated privileges.
Public references point to official patches released in osTicket v1.17.7 and v1.18.3, along with the corresponding commit that addresses input sanitization in the PDF export path. Administrators are advised to upgrade promptly and restrict guest access where feasible.
EPSS scores for the vulnerability reached a peak of 0.7537 on 2026-04-09 before receding to the current value of 0.6687, indicating measurable post-disclosure interest. Independent research publications have examined chaining opportunities beyond the initial file read.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-1918
Vulnerability Data
Enhancesoft osTicket versions 1.18.x prior to 1.18.3 and 1.17.x prior to 1.17.7 contain an arbitrary file read vulnerability in the ticket PDF export functionality. A remote attacker can submit a ticket containing crafted rich-text HTML that includes PHP filter expressions…
more
which are insufficiently sanitized before being processed by the mPDF PDF generator during export. When the attacker exports the ticket to PDF, the generated PDF can embed the contents of attacker-selected files from the server filesystem as bitmap images, allowing disclosure of sensitive local files in the context of the osTicket application user. This issue is exploitable in default configurations where guests may create tickets and access ticket status, or where self-registration is enabled.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.