Skip to content

GHSA-v33r-r6h2-8wr7 CVE-2026-28685

Kimai's API invoice endpoint missing customer-level access control (IDOR)

Medium Packagist
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.45%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-285 Improper Authorization
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
2.51.0
Upgrade kimai/kimai to this version or later

Description

Summary

GET /api/invoices/{id} only checks the role-based view_invoice permission but does not verify the requesting user has access to the invoice's customer. Any user with ROLE_TEAMLEAD (which grants view_invoice) can read all invoices in the system, including those belonging to customers assigned to other teams.

Affected Code

src/API/InvoiceController.php line 92-101:

#[IsGranted('view_invoice')]           // Role check only, no customer access check
#[Route(methods: ['GET'], path: '/{id}', name: 'get_invoice', requirements: ['id' => '\d+'])]
public function getAction(Invoice $invoice): Response
{
    $view = new View($invoice, 200);
    $view->getContext()->setGroups(self::GROUPS_ENTITY);
    return $this->viewHandler->handle($view);  // Returns ANY invoice by ID
}

The web controller (src/Controller/InvoiceController.php line 304-307) correctly checks customer access:

#[IsGranted('view_invoice')]
#[IsGranted(new Expression("is_granted('access', subject.getCustomer())"), 'invoice')]
public function downloadAction(Invoice $invoice, ...): Response { ... }

The access attribute in CustomerVoter (line 71-87) verifies team membership, but this check is entirely missing from the API endpoint.

PoC

Tested against Kimai v2.50.0 (Docker: kimai/kimai2:apache).

Setup:

  • TeamA with CustomerA ("SecretCorp"), TeamB with CustomerB ("BobCorp")
  • Bob is a teamlead in TeamB only
  • An invoice exists for SecretCorp (TeamA)
# Bob (TeamB) reads SecretCorp (TeamA) invoice
curl -H "Authorization: Bearer BOB_TOKEN" http://localhost:8888/api/invoices/1

Response (200 OK):

{
  "invoiceNumber": "INV-2026-001",
  "total": 15000.0,
  "currency": "USD",
  "customer": {"name": "SecretCorp", ...}
}

Bob can also enumerate all invoices via GET /api/invoices — the list endpoint uses setCurrentUser() in the query but the single-item endpoint bypasses this entirely via Symfony ParamConverter.

Impact

Any teamlead can read all invoices across the system regardless of team assignment. Invoice data typically contains sensitive financial information (amounts, customer details, payment terms). In multi-team deployments this breaks the intended data isolation between teams.

Suggested Fix

Add the customer access check to the API endpoint, matching the web controller:

 #[IsGranted('view_invoice')]
+#[IsGranted(new Expression("is_granted('access', subject.getCustomer())"), 'invoice')]
 #[Route(methods: ['GET'], path: '/{id}', name: 'get_invoice')]
 public function getAction(Invoice $invoice): Response

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
kimai/kimai
< 2.51.0
2.51.0

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.

kimai/kimai Packagist → 2.51.0

composer
composer require kimai/kimai:^2.51.0

Severity breakdown

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-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
  • 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.

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-rw46-qg69-vg6h
Kimai: ExportTemplate CRUD Missing Authorization Check Allows Unauthorized TEAMLEAD Access
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-v8hx-4vx8-wc96
Kimai: Pre-2FA KIMAI_SESSION cookie grants full authenticated REST API access, bypassing TOTP
High Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-2xgg-2x8h-8xw4
Kimai: Improper Authorization in Project, Customer, and Activity Rate Edit Endpoints Allows Cross-Scope Rate Manipulation
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg
Kimai has Improper Authorization in Team Member and Team Activity Assignment APIs Which Allows Expansion of Team Scope Beyond Authorized Visibility
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-jr9p-4h4j-6c58
Kimai: Default APP_SECRET in Docker Image Enables Cookie Forgery and Account Takeover
Critical Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-r8vr-m544-qh4h
Kimai: Login CSRF in the Timesheet Stop and Restart API Endpoints Allows Unauthorized State Changes
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-c6w6-57jj-62vh
Improper Authorization in Kimai Timesheet Restart and Duplicate Allows New Timesheets After Project Access Revocation
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-3q6q-26vg-v97x
Kimai: Improper Authorization Through Activity Creation with Preset Project Allows Creation Under Unauthorized Projects
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
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