GHSA-9rg3-v78m-26q8 CVE-2026-91983 GO-2026-6726
Vikunja: API token scopes bypassed via task expand parameter (comments, reactions, time entry counts)
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.30%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.30% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
2.6.0- Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later
Description
Summary
API token permission checks only match the HTTP method and route path. The expand query parameter on task read endpoints embeds data from other permission groups (task comments, reactions, time entry counts) without checking whether the token holds those scopes. A token scoped only to tasks read permissions can therefore read task comments and reactions it was explicitly not granted.
Details
models.CanDoAPIRoute (pkg/models/api_routes.go, ~line 440) authorises API tokens purely by comparing method and c.Path() against the routes stored for each granted permission group. The query string is never consulted.
The task read endpoints accept expand:
GET /api/v1/tasks/:task,GET /api/v1/tasks(pkg/models/tasks.goReadOne/ReadAll,pkg/models/task_collection.go)GET /api/v2/tasks/:id,GET /api/v2/tasks,GET /api/v2/projects/:project/tasks(pkg/routes/api/v2/tasks.go,task_collection.go)
Accepted values include comments, comment_count, reactions, time_entries_count. addMoreInfoToTasks (pkg/models/tasks.go, ~line 683) loads and embeds that data. At that layer only a web.Auth (the plain owner user, resolved by auth.GetAuthFromClaims) is available, so the token's scopes cannot be enforced there either.
Result: the tasks_comments, reactions, and time_entries permission groups are advisory for any data reachable through a task expansion.
Impact
A holder of an API token scoped to tasks: [read_one] or tasks: [read_all] (or projects_views_tasks: [read_all]) can read the full bodies of task comments, all reactions, and time entry counts on every task the token owner can access, despite GET /api/v1|v2/tasks/:task/comments and the reactions endpoints correctly returning 401 for the same token.
The leak is limited to data the token owner can already see, and is read-only. The realistic victim is a user who grants a narrowly scoped token to a third-party integration expecting comments to stay private.
Proof of Concept
Against the test fixtures (pkg/db/fixtures/api_tokens.yml, token 1 has {"tasks":["read_all","update"]}, plaintext tk_2eef46f40ebab3304919ab2e7e39993f75f29d2e):
GET /api/v2/tasks/1/comments
Authorization: Bearer tk_2eef46f40ebab3304919ab2e7e39993f75f29d2e
-> 401 {"code":11,"message":"missing, malformed, expired or otherwise invalid token provided"}
GET /api/v2/tasks?expand=comments&filter=id%3D1
Authorization: Bearer tk_2eef46f40ebab3304919ab2e7e39993f75f29d2e
-> 200, response items[0].comments contains the full comment objects
Same behaviour with expand=reactions, and on the v1 endpoints GET /api/v1/tasks?expand=comments / GET /api/v1/tasks/1?expand=comments. Any user-created token with only tasks read permissions reproduces this.
Recommended Fix
Enforce expansions in the single existing choke point, models.CanDoAPIRoute: after the method/path match succeeds, read c.QueryParams()["expand"] and require the token to hold the owning group's read permission for each value, e.g.
comments,comment_count->tasks_comments.read_allreactions->reactions.read_alltime_entries_count->time_entries.read_all
(subtasks, buckets, is_unread are task-level data and need nothing extra.) Doing this in the middleware covers both v1 and v2 without handler or model changes. Add a table-driven test alongside pkg/webtests/api_token_method_matching_test.go asserting a tasks-only token gets 401 with expand=comments and 200 once tasks_comments.read_all is added.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| code.vikunja.io/api | >= 1.0.0, < 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:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/security/advisories/GHSA-9rg3-v78m-26q8
- github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/pull/3688
- github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/commit/077dc4de79ce6f1ab59215a2c7bf9b30423685f2
- github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/releases/tag/v2.6.0
- vulncheck.com/advisories/vikunja-before-2.6.0-api-token-scope-bypass-via-expand-pa…
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
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