GHSA-3cm4-ccvw-6xr6 CVE-2026-82651 GO-2026-6662
SiYuan: /history/*path and /repo/diff/*path potentially exposing historical snapshots of data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json and data/templates/*
- Severity
- 6.9 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.48%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.24% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- Fix
0.0.0-20260816034002-035bf9a8c311- Upgrade github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel to this version or later
Description
Summary
GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34 added a centralized guard,
util.IsForbiddenAbsPath(), specifically to block access to a small
set of sensitive files: conf/conf.json (plaintext
accessAuthCode/API token/cookie key), data/snippets/conf.json,
the entire data/templates/ directory, and
data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json (plaintext publish-mode passwords).
It was applied to kernel/api/file.go and kernel/mcp/tools/file.go.
Two other routes in the same server that serve arbitrary files by path,
/history/*path and /repo/diff/*path, construct their target paths
independently and were not updated to call this new guard. Since the
repo/history snapshot system's tracked root is data/ (confirmed by
getSyncIgnoreLines(), whose ignore file lives at
data/.siyuan/syncignore with entries relative to data/), both
data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json and data/templates/* fall within
the scope that can legitimately be captured in historical snapshots,
meaning a prior version of either file can exist in
util.HistoryDir/the repo-diff temp checkout even after the live file
has been protected by the new guard. This is CWE-862 (Missing
Authorization) applied to a very recently introduced protection
mechanism.
Details
kernel/server/serve.go, /history/*path (around line 994):
ginServer.GET("/history/*path", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, func(context *gin.Context) {
p := filepath.Join(util.HistoryDir, context.Param("path"))
// 加密笔记本的历史是密文(.sy/assets/AV),需先解密再输出
if serveEncryptedHistory(context, p) {
return
}
secureAssetContentHeaders(context, p, p)
http.ServeFile(context.Writer, context.Request, p)
})
No call to util.IsForbiddenAbsPath(p) anywhere in this handler.
kernel/server/serve.go, /repo/diff/*path (around line 1241):
ginServer.GET("/repo/diff/*path", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, func(context *gin.Context) {
requestPath := filepath.Clean(context.Param("path"))
if strings.Contains(requestPath, "..") {
context.Status(http.StatusUnauthorized)
return
}
...
p := filepath.Join(repoDiffBaseDir, requestPath)
if !gulu.File.IsSubPath(repoDiffBaseDir, p) {
context.Status(http.StatusUnauthorized)
return
}
http.ServeFile(context.Writer, context.Request, p)
})
This route does have its own traversal protection (.. rejection and
IsSubPath containment within repoDiffBaseDir), but that only
prevents escaping the diff-checkout directory, it does nothing to
prevent retrieving a legitimately checked-out historical copy of
publishAccess.json or a templates file from within that directory,
which is exactly what the new guard exists to prevent regardless of
which directory the copy currently sits in.
util.IsForbiddenAbsPath() itself (kernel/util/path_guard.go,
introduced by the referenced fix) confirms the intended scope:
// 禁止访问 data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json(含发布模式明文访问密码)
publishAccessPath := NormalizeAndResolve(filepath.Join(DataDir, ".siyuan", "publishAccess.json"))
if fileNorm == publishAccessPath {
return true
}
and
// 禁止访问 data/templates 目录(含目录本身及其全部子路径)
templatesBase := NormalizeAndResolve(filepath.Join(DataDir, "templates"))
if fileNorm == templatesBase || gulu.File.IsSubPath(templatesBase, fileNorm) {
return true
}
Both are paths within data/, the same root the sync/history/repo
system tracks.
Step-by-step reproduction
- As the workspace admin, enable Publish with a password on at least
one notebook (creating
data/.siyuan/publishAccess.jsonwith a plaintext password), then let a sync/backup snapshot capture this state (or check whether local history capture already coversdata/.siyuan/in the deployed version). - Change or remove the publish password, so the live
publishAccess.jsonno longer contains the old plaintext password the new guard is meant to hide, going forward. - As the admin, request the historical/diff version instead of the
live file:
curl -s http://<target>:6806/history/<snapshot-path-to-publishAccess.json> \ -u "<workspaceName>:<accessAuthCode>" curl -s http://<target>:6806/repo/diff/<diff-path-to-publishAccess.json> \ -u "<workspaceName>:<accessAuthCode>" - Expected if consistently protected, matching the behavior the new
guard already provides on the live-file endpoints: rejected.
Observed: neither handler calls
IsForbiddenAbsPath, so the historical copy is served if it exists in that location.
(Not run against a live compiled kernel, same sandbox limitation noted
throughout this review; both handlers are read directly from source at
the reviewed commit, and IsForbiddenAbsPath's scope, plus the
sync-root confirmation via getSyncIgnoreLines(), are quoted directly
above. Whether these specific files are captured by history/repo
snapshots in a given deployment depends on the workspace's actual
usage history and was not independently verified against a live
instance in this review.)
Impact
An admin-authenticated request to either route can potentially retrieve
a historical copy of data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json (disclosing a
plaintext publish-mode password even after it has been changed or the
live file has been protected) or a data/templates/* file, directly
undermining the protection GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34 was written four days
prior to this review specifically to provide, via two routes that
predate that fix and were not updated alongside it.
## Affected products
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | **Go** |
| Package name | `github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel` |
| Affected versions | Present as of commit `251596f` (2026-08-12, the version this review confirmed), i.e. postdates and was not covered by the `GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34` fix (commit `3542530`, 2026-08-08) |
| Patched versions | *(none yet, leave blank until a fix is released)* |
## Severity
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Vector string | `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:M/I:N/A:N` |
| Score | **~5.9 (Medium)**, `PR:H` since admin authentication is required at the HTTP layer, confidentiality impact scoped to whatever sensitive historical content happens to exist in the tracked snapshots for a given deployment (a real but deployment-dependent condition, honestly reflected as Medium rather than assumed to always be present), no integrity/availability impact since both are read-only. |
## Weaknesses (CWE)
- **CWE-862**: Missing Authorization (primary)
- **CWE-200**: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
## Notes for filing
- Direct, narrow follow-up to `GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34`; recommend
referencing that advisory directly when filing, since this is
precisely the "sibling caller missed" pattern that fix's own
centralization (moving the check into a shared `util` function) was
presumably intended to prevent, just for two callers that existed
before the shared function did and weren't migrated to it.
- Suggested fix: add `if util.IsForbiddenAbsPath(p) { ... reject ... }`
to both handlers, matching the pattern already applied in
`kernel/api/file.go` and `kernel/mcp/tools/file.go`.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel | < 0.0.0-20260816034002-035bf9a8c311 |
0.0.0-20260816034002-035bf9a8c311 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel Go → 0.0.0-20260816034002-035bf9a8c311
- go
go get github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel@v0.0.0-20260816034002-035bf9a8c311 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 6.9
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 4.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-xp3q-r38w-vgqm SiYuan: The publish filter for local storage returns the administrator's entire storage map with only three keys sanitized | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-9cqf-hhrq-7v45 SiYuan: getAttributeViewSearchTarget returns database row content to anonymous readers with no publish-access check, reopening the class closed one day earlier at the adjacent route | High | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-57v5-wqx3-cgj4 SiYuan: Database view structure (all view names, layout types and per-field visibility) is returned to anonymous readers by /api/av/getAttributeViewFieldViews | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-4wwp-f6gw-6qm5 SiYuan: TLS Private Keys Readable via getFile (Incomplete Blocklist) | High | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-x8gv-g2g3-65fj SiYuan Agent Tools SSRF via DNS-Rebinding TOCTOU (Bypass of CheckHostSSRF) | High | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-p23f-cm6q-2qp8 SiYuan MCP asset.upload Reads Arbitrary Absolute File Paths (Workspace Boundary Bypass) | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-rpx2-p6hp-x5gj SiYuan: Missing consistency check between packageName and repoURL/repoHash in bazaar package install allows overwriting an existing, trusted plugin | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34 SiYuan: MCP file tool's blocklist is incomplete relative to the HTTP file API it claims to align with, exposing publish-mode passwords and other sensitive workspace files | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor