Skip to content

GHSA-v479-vf79-mg83 CVE-2026-40103 GO-2026-5650

Vikunja: Scoped API tokens with projects.background permission can delete project backgrounds

Medium Go
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.go
  • pkg/routes/routes.go
  • pkg/modules/background/handler/background.go

Route registration exposes separate permissions for the same path:

  • GET /api/v1/projects/:project/background -> projects.background
  • DELETE /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

  1. Log in as a user who can update a project that already has a background.
  2. Create an API token with only: {"projects":["background"]}
  3. Send: DELETE /api/v1/projects/<project_id>/background Authorization: Bearer <token>
  4. Observe that the request succeeds and the project background is removed.

For comparison:

  1. Create an API token with only: {"projects":["background_delete"]}
  2. Repeat the same DELETE request.
  3. Observe that the request is rejected with 401 Unauthorized.

I confirmed this locally with three validations:

  1. /api/v1/routes advertises both background and background_delete.
  2. The matcher unit test proves CanDoAPIRoute() accepts DELETE for background.
  3. The webtest proves a real API token with only background successfully 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

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-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

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