GHSA-3hc7-r24j-rpwc GO-2026-6714
Vikunja: Cross-project task disclosure through subtask expansion
Description
Summary
Vikunja lets a task in one project have a subtask that lives in a different project. When listing a project's tasks, an option pulls in those subtasks (?expand%5B%5D=subtasks). The main listing is correctly filtered to the projects the caller can access, but the subtask expansion is not: it returns the linked subtasks regardless of whether the caller has any access to the project they belong to. So a member with read-only access to one project can read the full content of tasks in other, private projects, any task that is a (recursive) subtask of a task the member is allowed to see.
Details
Subtasks can cross project boundaries; a task in an accessible project can be linked as the parent of a subtask that lives in a private project. Creating that link requires access to both tasks, so the link itself is set up legitimately by someone who has it. The problem is what happens afterwards, on read.
When a task list is requested with subtask expansion, the server takes the tasks the caller is allowed to see and walks their subtask relations recursively to fetch the linked tasks. That fetch doesn't apply the access-control filter the main listing use, it returns every linked task by ID, with no check on whether the caller can access the project it belongs to. Because the walk is recursive, it also returns the entire subtree beneath each linked task.
The effect is a cross-project read. A read-only member of project P who has no access at all to a private project Q can retrieve Q's tasks, full objects, including title, description, dates, assignees, labels, and attachment metadata, as long as some task in Q is linked as a subtask under a task in P. The links persist after access changes, so a former collaborator who has been removed from Q, but still has read access to P, keeps this read channel into Q.
The fix is to apply the same project-access filter to the expanded subtasks that the main listing already applies, so only subtasks in projects the caller can access are returned.
PoC
Setup: the attacker has read-only access to project P. A task in P has a subtask that lives in a private project Q the attacker cannot access (a normal cross-project subtask, created earlier by someone with access to both).
- List P's tasks with subtask expansion:
GET /api/v1/projects/<P>/views/<view>/tasks?expand%5B%5D=subtasks
- The response includes the task from Q as a full object, title, description, dates, assignees, labels, attachment metadata, even though the attacker has no access to Q. Because the expansion is recursive, the entire subtree of subtasks beneath it is returned too. The same works against the account-wide listing:
GET /api/v1/tasks?expand%5B%5D=subtasks
Impact
Cross-project confidentiality break. A user with read access to one project can read the full content of tasks in other projects they were never granted access to, whenever those tasks are linked as subtasks (directly or recursively) under a task they can see. The disclosure is read-only, no modification, but it exposes arbitrary private task data, and it survives access revocation, since the underlying links remain after a collaborator is removed. Exploitation depends on a suitable cross-project subtask link already existing; the attacker cannot create one to a project they can't access.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| code.vikunja.io/api | < 2.6.0 |
2.6.0 |
| code.vikunja.io/api | all versions |
No fix yet |
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.
code.vikunja.io/api Go → 2.6.0
- go
go get code.vikunja.io/api@v2.6.0 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- Low
- 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
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
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-m687-p538-r5hp Vikunja: Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy trusts every localhost origin which should not be trusted | Medium | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
| GHSA-fmmf-xq98-g327 Vikunja: Write-level project members can delete admin-tier link shares through an unloaded permission check | Medium | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
| GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w Vikunja: Explicit lower-permission share on a sub-project is silently overridden by an inherited parent permission (broken access control / privilege-management regression in v2.6.0) | Medium | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
| GHSA-hjx8-qv73-f7cm Vikunja: Webhooks and link shares survive every revocation path, so a removed collaborator keeps a live feed | High | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
| GHSA-fprf-r6rv-xg99 Vikunja: Saved filter creation with an empty filter string recalculates task positions across all tenants | Medium | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
| GHSA-4hv6-xc92-j86g Vikunja: WebSocket authentication ignores server-side session state, so revoked sessions keep receiving live pushes | High | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
| GHSA-w2ch-4xgr-22ww Vikunja: Task relation deletion does not check read access to the other task, allowing cross-project relation removal | Low | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
| GHSA-8wvg-r2j4-3737 Vikunja: Assignee email addresses disclosed to read-only project members via the task assignees endpoint | Medium | Also affects code.vikunja.io/api |
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