Skip to content

GHSA-g38j-7v97-x298 GO-2026-6732

Vikunja: CalDAV relation creation bypasses TaskRelation.CanCreate, allowing an unauthorized write into any task by known UID

Medium Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
2.6.0
Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later

Description

Summary

Creating a task relation over CalDAV does not run the TaskRelation.CanCreate permission check that the REST API enforces. An attacker can attach a relation to any task whose UID they know, including tasks in projects they have no access to. The identical operation over REST is correctly refused with 403.

Details

persistRelations (pkg/routes/caldav/listStorageProvider.go, ~line 986) resolves the related task with an unscoped UID lookup (models.GetTaskSimpleByUUID) and calls rel.Create(s, a) directly, with no CanCreate check. pkg/caldav/parsing.go maps RELATED-TO;RELTYPE=CHILD to RelationKindSubtask. Because the CalDAV path never invokes the model's permission method, an authenticated user can create a subtask/parent relation between a task they own and an arbitrary victim task identified only by its UID.

Task UIDs are json:"-" (never exposed over REST) but are exposed over CalDAV to anyone who has ever had read access to the containing project. Revoking that access does not unlearn the UID, so the realistic attacker is a removed collaborator.

This write primitive also feeds the cross-project subtask-disclosure issue (GHSA-3hc7-r24j-rpwc): it lets an attacker create the very cross-project subtask edge that read path leaks across, removing that finding's "the attacker cannot create one to a project they can't access" precondition.

A secondary effect of the same unchecked path: the createDummy branch can Create a task unchecked when the referenced UID does not resolve.

PoC (verified at runtime against v2.5.0, commit c775a6c8)

Baseline control — REST refuses:

PUT /api/v1/tasks/{attackerTask}/relations   (attacker JWT)
{"task_id":{attackerTask},"other_task_id":{victimTask},"relation_kind":"subtask"}
-> HTTP 403 Forbidden

Exploit — CalDAV succeeds:

PUT /dav/projects/{attackerProject}/{attackerTaskUID}.ics   (BasicAuth attacker)
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTODO
UID:{attackerTaskUID}
RELATED-TO;RELTYPE=CHILD:{victimTaskUID}
END:VTODO
END:VCALENDAR
-> HTTP 201

Result: a task_relations row is written with task_id={victimTask}, relation_kind=parenttask, created_by_id={attacker} — a persisted, attacker-attributable write onto a task in a project the attacker cannot access.

Impact

Broken access control (missing authorization) on relation creation. An attacker can pollute the relation set of arbitrary tasks by UID and create the cross-project edges that enable subtask disclosure. Read of the related task's contents still requires the separate disclosure path; this finding is the unauthorized write.

Fix

Route CalDAV relation creation through TaskRelation.CanCreate, and scope the UID lookup to projects the caller can access.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.vikunja.io/api
< 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:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

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
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
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