Skip to content

GHSA-rj9j-8772-4h6c CVE-2026-68582 GO-2026-6749

Vikunja: Link-share token reads any tenant's kanban buckets and enumerates usernames/IDs instance-wide (BOLA)

Medium Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.21% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.4.0
Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later

Description

Summary

The task-collection endpoint GET /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/tasks loads the requested project view straight from the URL path without verifying the caller is authorized for it. For a link-share token, the task query is correctly pinned to the share's own project, but the view is taken from the attacker-controlled path and never re-validated against the share. A holder of a share link to any project can therefore point the endpoint at any other tenant's kanban view and receive that view's bucket records — bucket titles plus the full created_by user object (username, name, id) — for every view in the instance. The same missing pre-authorization view load also yields a project/view-ID existence oracle (404 vs. non-404) usable by link shares and ordinary authenticated users alike.

Details

Root cause is in TaskCollection.ReadAll (pkg/models/task_collection.go).

  1. The view is resolved from the URL params before any permission check:
// pkg/models/task_collection.go  (ReadAll)
if tf.ProjectViewID != 0 {
    view, err = GetProjectViewByIDAndProject(s, tf.ProjectViewID, tf.ProjectID) // (URL params)
    ...
}

GetProjectViewByIDAndProject (pkg/models/project_view.go) filters only on WHERE id = ? AND project_id = ? — it performs no authorization. A valid (project, view) pair returns the view; an invalid pair returns ErrProjectViewDoesNotExist (HTTP 404).

  1. For a link-share caller, the code pins the task scope to the token's own project but reuses the attacker-supplied view:
shareAuth, is := a.(*LinkSharing)
if is {
    project, err := GetProjectSimpleByID(s, shareAuth.ProjectID)   // token's project
    ...
    return getTaskOrTasksInBuckets(s, a, []*Project{project}, view, opts, filteringForBucket, tf.forceFlatTasks)
    // `view` is the foreign, attacker-controlled view — never validated against shareAuth.ProjectID
}
  1. getTaskOrTasksInBuckets → GetTasksInBucketsForView (pkg/models/kanban.go) reads the buckets of that foreign view directly:
err = s.Where("project_view_id = ?", view.ID).OrderBy("position").Find(&buckets)
...
users, err := getUsersOrLinkSharesFromIDs(s, userIDs) // resolves each bucket's created_by

Each returned Bucket serializes CreatedBy *user.User as json:"created_by" (pkg/models/kanban.go), exposing the creating user's username, name, and id.

The normal (non-share) path is protected because it runs getRelevantProjectsFromCollection, which calls project.CanRead on the URL project and returns 403 before any bucket data is produced. Only the LinkSharing branch skips that gate, which is why the bucket disclosure is link-share-specific. ReadAllWeb (pkg/web/handler/read_all.go) performs no permission check of its own, so all authorization for this endpoint lives inside ReadAll.

Scope of the leak (verified against fixtures): the tasks returned inside the buckets are still constrained to the share's own project (getRawTasksForProjects filters tasks.project_id IN opts.projectIDs, derived from the share's project). So victim task contents do not leak; what leaks is the foreign view's bucket structure and, critically, the created_by user identities of arbitrary buckets instance-wide.

Introduced in v0.24.0 by the per-view kanban feature (feat(views)!: return tasks in buckets by view), which added the views/{view}/tasks endpoint and the foreign-view bucket load. The link-share branch predates it, but the two only combine into this bug from v0.24.0 onward.

Impact

A holder of a link-share token to any single project (link shares are designed to be handed out, often semi-publicly) can:

  • Enumerate all project and view IDs instance-wide. IDs are sequential auto-increment integers; an invalid (project, view) pair returns 404 while a valid one returns 200, giving a reliable existence oracle across all tenants.
  • Disclose the created_by user of any kanban view's buckets — username, display name, and user id. Because Vikunja auto-creates a default project with a Kanban view for every user, iterating view IDs enumerates usernames and user IDs for essentially every account on the instance.
  • Disclose bucket titles of every kanban view in the instance.

This is a cross-tenant broken-object-level-authorization bypass. It does not disclose victim task contents through this path, but instance-wide username/user-id enumeration plus kanban structure disclosure is a meaningful PII and reconnaissance exposure that defeats the tenant isolation the permission model is meant to enforce. The ID-enumeration oracle additionally works for any ordinary authenticated user (invalid combo → 404 vs. inaccessible combo → 403), because the view is loaded before the CanRead check.

Proof of Concept

Prerequisites: link sharing enabled (default), a share link to any project (call it project A), and any second project B (e.g. another tenant's) with a kanban view V_B.

  1. Authenticate the share link to obtain a share JWT: POST /api/v1/shares/{shareHash}/auth
  2. Using that token, request a foreign kanban view's tasks: GET /api/v1/projects/{B}/views/{V_B}/tasks
  3. The 200 response is a list of Bucket objects belonging to view V_B — each with title and a populated created_by (username, name, id) — even though the token has no relationship to project B.
  4. Iterate {B}/{V_B} over sequential integers: valid pairs return bucket lists (harvest usernames/ids), invalid pairs return 404.

Verified locally against the model fixtures: a LinkSharing{ProjectID: 1} (project 1 owned by user 1) calling TaskCollection{ProjectID: 2, ProjectViewID: 8}.ReadAll (project 2 owned by user 3) returns project 2's buckets ("testbucket4 - other project", "testbucket40") with their created_by user objects populated, and no error — while a nonexistent view id returns ErrProjectViewDoesNotExist.

Recommended Fix

In TaskCollection.ReadAll, before the view is loaded, pin the requested project to the link share's own project so any foreign view resolves to a 404 instead of leaking:

if shareAuth, is := a.(*LinkSharing); is {
    tf.ProjectID = shareAuth.ProjectID
}

This is consistent with the existing behavior that already forces the task query to shareAuth.ProjectID, and it closes both the bucket disclosure and the share-token half of the enumeration oracle. As defence-in-depth, resolve the view's authorization against the authenticated caller for every auth type (not just link shares), so the endpoint never loads a view the caller cannot read — closing the 404-vs-403 existence oracle for ordinary users as well.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.vikunja.io/api
>= 0.24.0, < 2.4.0
2.4.0
code.vikunja.io/api
>= 0.24.0
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 → 2.4.0

go
go get code.vikunja.io/api@v2.4.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
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.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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
  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