What is CVE-2026-76614?

CVE-2026-76614 is OpenEMR < 8.3.0 Path Traversal Information Disclosure via EDI Archive Restore. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-22 CWE-22.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-76614. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-76614 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-76614 using CVSS 4.3, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

mediumRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2026-76614

CVE-2026-76614 — OpenEMR < 8.3.0 Path Traversal Information Disclosure via EDI Archive Restore

Q: Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Q: Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-76614. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

Q: Is it in CISA KEV?

No. CVE-2026-76614 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Q: Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

Q: How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

Q: How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-76614 using CVSS 4.3, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Q: Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Q: Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

Q: What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

OpenEMR before 8.3.0 contains a path traversal vulnerability in the EDI archive restore function. The archrestore_sel POST parameter is passed to the archive restore handler without sanitization for path traversal sequences. The handler checks whether the supplied path exists on the filesystem, and the differing response messages leak whether the target path exists. An authenticated user with EOB Data Entry permissions can probe arbitrary filesystem paths on the server to determine file existence.

Published Aug 19, 2026Updated Aug 19, 2026Sources: NVD, openemr (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

openemr

CVSS base

4.3

medium · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade openemr to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
openemr	openemr	0 to < 8.3.0	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

None

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
4.3	CVSS 3.1	medium	2.8	1.4	NVD, openemr (CNA), GHSA
5.3	CVSS 4.0	medium	—	—	openemr (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-22 · Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Modify Files or Directories
Read Files or Directories
DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Mitigation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an accept known good input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, boat may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as red or blue. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single . character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as / to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering / is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if ../ sequences are removed from the .../...// string in a sequential fashion, two instances of ../ would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the ../ string.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-22

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-126 · Path TraversalCAPEC-76 · Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-79 · Using Slashes in Alternate EncodingCAPEC-64 · Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation LogicCAPEC-78 · Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Detection

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

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable openemr.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSEDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 4.3 (AV:N)
Aug 19, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 19, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-7994-gr8j-h7xp published (medium)
Aug 19, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
CVE published by mitre
Aug 19, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

6 on the record

github.com/openemr/openemr/commit/7973cab3fe3f2fd2374ed71c02605e3c93491c36
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/openemr/openemr/releases/tag/v8_3_0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/openemr/openemr/security/advisories/GHSA-gfwc-jg5p-jcp4
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openemr-path-traversal-information-disclosure-via-edi-archive-restore
Vendor Advisory
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-76614
NVD
github.com/advisories/GHSA-7994-gr8j-h7xp
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

openemrevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-22other pages naming this weakness

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 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 record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-76614 is OpenEMR < 8.3.0 Path Traversal Information Disclosure via EDI Archive Restore, a medium vulnerability affecting openemr from openemr. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-76614. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 4.3 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.