Skip to content

GHSA-mr3j-p26x-72x4 CVE-2026-33313 GO-2026-4797

Vikunja has an IDOR in Task Comments Allows Reading Arbitrary Comments

Medium Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.27%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 19.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

An authenticated user can read any task comment by ID, regardless of whether they have access to the task the comment belongs to, by substituting the task ID in the API URL with a task they do have access to.

Details

The GET /api/v1/tasks/{taskID}/comments/{commentID} endpoint performs an authorization check against the task ID provided in the URL path, then loads the comment by its own ID without verifying it belongs to that task.

Root Cause

In pkg/models/task_comment_permissions.go, CanRead constructs a Task using the TaskID from the URL and checks Task.CanRead:

func (tc *TaskComment) CanRead(s *xorm.Session, a web.Auth) (bool, int, error) {
    t := Task{ID: tc.TaskID}
    return t.CanRead(s, a)
}

In pkg/models/task_comments.go, getTaskCommentSimple loads the comment by ID only, with NoAutoCondition() explicitly disabling XORM's implicit struct-field filtering:

func getTaskCommentSimple(s *xorm.Session, tc *TaskComment) error {
    exists, err := s.
        Where("id = ?", tc.ID).
        NoAutoCondition().
        Get(tc)
    // ...
}

The generic web handler (pkg/web/handler/read_one.go) calls CanRead before ReadOne, so the permission check passes against the attacker-controlled task ID, and then ReadOne returns the comment from a completely different task.

Attack Scenario

  1. Attacker is authenticated and has read access to any task (task ID A) — e.g. their own task.
  2. Attacker guesses or enumerates a comment ID (C) belonging to a task in another user's private project.
  3. Attacker requests: GET /api/v1/tasks/A/comments/C
  4. Authorization passes because the attacker can read task A.
  5. The comment C is loaded by ID only and returned, leaking its contents and author.

Credit

This vulnerability was found using GitHub Security Lab Taskflows.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.vikunja.io/api
<= 2.1.0
No fix yet
code.vikunja.io/api
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 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

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