Skip to content

GHSA-m547-hp4w-j6jx CVE-2026-29794 GO-2026-4791

Vikunja has a Rate-Limit Bypass for Unauthenticated Users via Spoofed Headers

Medium Go
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.66% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-807 Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
Fix
2.2.0
Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later

Description

Summary

Unauthenticated users are able to bypass the application's built-in rate-limits by spoofing the X-Forwarded-For or X-Real-IP headers due to the rate-limit relying on the value of (echo.Context).RealIP.

Details

In the first file below, the rate-limit for unauthenticated users can be observed being populated with the ip value. In the second file, it shows it using the c.RealIP() function for the ip case. Due to this, the rate-limit will rely on the value of one of the two mentioned headers (X-Forwarded-For or X-Real-IP). These can be spoofed by users client-side in order to completely bypass any unauthenticated rate-limits in place.

Some reverse proxies like Traefik will overwrite this value by default, but others will not, leaving any deployment that either isn't using a reserve proxy that specifically overwrites the header's value or isn't using a reverse proxy vulnerable.

File 1: pkg\routes\routes.go:318

// This is the group with no auth
	// It is its own group to be able to rate limit this based on different heuristics
	n := a.Group("")
	setupRateLimit(n, "ip")

	// Docs
	n.GET("/docs.json", apiv1.DocsJSON)
	n.GET("/docs", apiv1.RedocUI)

	// Prometheus endpoint
	setupMetrics(n)

	// Separate route for unauthenticated routes to enable rate limits for it
	ur := a.Group("")
	rate := limiter.Rate{
		Period: 60 * time.Second,
		Limit:  config.RateLimitNoAuthRoutesLimit.GetInt64(),
	}
	rateLimiter := createRateLimiter(rate)
	ur.Use(RateLimit(rateLimiter, "ip"))

File 2: pkg\routes\rate_limit.go:41

// RateLimit is the rate limit middleware
func RateLimit(rateLimiter *limiter.Limiter, rateLimitKind string) echo.MiddlewareFunc {
	return func(next echo.HandlerFunc) echo.HandlerFunc {
		return func(c *echo.Context) (err error) {
			var rateLimitKey string
			switch rateLimitKind {
			case "ip":
				rateLimitKey = c.RealIP()
			case "user":
				auth, err := auth2.GetAuthFromClaims(c)
				if err != nil {
					log.Errorf("Error getting auth from jwt claims: %v", err)
				}
				rateLimitKey = "user_" + strconv.FormatInt(auth.GetID(), 10)
			default:
				log.Errorf("Unknown rate limit kind configured: %s", rateLimitKind)
			}

PoC

  1. Download and run the default docker compose file via the instructions here: https://vikunja.io/install/. Do not configure a proxy.
  2. Once running, navigate to the application in a web browser that is using a web proxy, such as Burp Suite.
  3. Attempt to authenticate to the application with an invalid username and password.
  4. In the web proxy's logs, locate the request to the /api/v1/login endpoint. Observe that the response contains rate-limit details:
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Cache-Control: no-store
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Origin
X-Ratelimit-Limit: 10
X-Ratelimit-Remaining: 9
X-Ratelimit-Reset: 1772224455
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:33:16 GMT
Content-Length: 54

{"code":1011,"message":"Wrong username or password."}
  1. Add the X-Forwarded-For header with an arbitrary value, like so: X-Forwarded-For: FakeValue. Send the request 10 times, or until the rate-limit is at zero.
  2. Modify the X-Forwarded-For headers value to be different, like so: X-Forwarded-For: NewValue.
  3. Observe that the X-Ratelimit-Remaining header's value has reset its countdown and is back at 9.

Impact

Unauthenticated users can abuse endpoints available to them for different potential impacts. The immediate concern would be brute-forcing usernames or specific accounts' passwords. This bypass allows unlimited requests against unauthenticated endpoints.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.vikunja.io/api
>= 0.8, < 2.2.0
2.2.0
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 → 2.2.0

go
go get code.vikunja.io/api@v2.2.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-807: Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision

The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only. Ensure that the system definitively and unambiguously keeps track of its own state and user state and has rules defined for legitimate state transitions. Do not allow any application user to affect state directly in any way other than through legitimate actions leading to state transitions. If information must be stored on the client, do not do so without encryption and integrity checking, or otherwise having a mechanism on the server side to catch tampering. Use a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm, such as Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [REF-529]. Apply this against the state or sensitive data that has to be exposed, which can guarantee the integrity of the data - i.e., that the data has not been modified. Ensure that a strong hash function is used (CWE-328).
  • 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. With a stateless protocol such as HTTP, use a framework that maintains the state for you. Examples include ASP.NET View State [REF-756] and the OWASP ESAPI Session Management feature [REF-45]. Be careful of language features that provide state support, since these might be provided as a convenience to the programmer and may not be considering security.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Identify all inputs that are used for security decisions and determine if you can modify the design so that you do not have to rely on submitted inputs at all. For example, you may be able to keep critical information about the user's session on the server side instead of recording it within external data.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
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