GHSA-g38j-7v97-x298 GO-2026-6732
Vikunja: CalDAV relation creation bypasses TaskRelation.CanCreate, allowing an unauthorized write into any task by known UID
- 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
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
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