GHSA-v479-vf79-mg83 CVE-2026-40103 GO-2026-5650
Vikunja: Scoped API tokens with projects.background permission can delete project backgrounds
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.22%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 12.85% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-836 Use of Password Hash Instead of Password for Authentication
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
2.3.0- Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later
Description
Summary
Vikunja's scoped API token enforcement for custom project background routes is method-confused. A token with only projects.background can successfully delete a project background, while a token with only projects.background_delete is rejected.
This is a scoped-token authorization bypass.
Details
I verified this locally on commit c5450fb55f5192508638cbb3a6956438452a712e.
Relevant code paths:
pkg/models/api_routes.gopkg/routes/routes.gopkg/modules/background/handler/background.go
Route registration exposes separate permissions for the same path:
GET /api/v1/projects/:project/background->projects.backgroundDELETE /api/v1/projects/:project/background->projects.background_delete
At enforcement time, CanDoAPIRoute() falls back to the parent group and reconstructs the child permission from the path segments only. For the DELETE request, that becomes background, so the matcher accepts any token containing projects.background without re-checking the HTTP method or matching the stored route detail.
This matters because RemoveProjectBackground() is a real destructive operation:
- It checks project update rights.
- It deletes the background file if present.
- It clears the project's
BackgroundFileID.
PoC
- Log in as a user who can update a project that already has a background.
- Create an API token with only:
{"projects":["background"]} - Send:
DELETE /api/v1/projects/<project_id>/backgroundAuthorization: Bearer <token> - Observe that the request succeeds and the project background is removed.
For comparison:
- Create an API token with only:
{"projects":["background_delete"]} - Repeat the same DELETE request.
- Observe that the request is rejected with
401 Unauthorized.
I confirmed this locally with three validations:
/api/v1/routesadvertises bothbackgroundandbackground_delete.- The matcher unit test proves
CanDoAPIRoute()accepts DELETE forbackground. - The webtest proves a real API token with only
backgroundsuccessfully deletes the background.
Impact
Scoped API tokens can exceed their intended capability. A token intended for project background access can delete project backgrounds, which weakens the trust model for automation and third-party integrations that rely on narrowly scoped tokens.
The attacker needs a valid API token created by a user who has update rights on the target project, but the token itself only needs the weaker projects.background permission.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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-836: Use of Password Hash Instead of Password for Authentication
The product records password hashes in a data store, receives a hash of a password from a client, and compares the supplied hash to the hash obtained from the data store.
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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