Skip to content

GHSA-vfxw-3x8p-2vjr CVE-2026-91981 GO-2026-6752

Vikunja: Link-share token can enumerate users through the v2 API

Medium Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.31%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.45% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.6.0
Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later

Description

Summary

A link-share token, the credential you hand out to let someone view a shared project, can call the v2 user-search endpoints, which it was never meant to reach. The v1 versions of the same endpoints correctly reject link-share tokens; the v2 versions don't. As a result, anyone with a share link can list every member of the shared project (and its parent projects), and can test whether any username exists anywhere on the instance.

Details

Two endpoints are affected:

GET /api/v2/projects/{id}/users/search only checks project.CanRead, which a link share satisfies on its own project. With no parameter it returns the full user list, walking up the parent-project chain. GET /api/v2/users?q=<name> is a global search. It needs a query term, but any term works as an existence oracle: a hit confirms the username exists somewhere on the instance and returns the display name.

Emails are correctly stripped from these responses, so the exposure is limited to identities (usernames and display names), but that's still an instance-wide directory that a share-link holder should never see.

The fix is to resolve the caller with GetFromAuth in both handlers, so link-share tokens are rejected the same way v1 already rejects them.

PoC

  1. Get a link-share token. With any account that owns a project, create a read-only link share and note the hash, then exchange it:
POST /api/v1/shares/<hash>/auth
{"password":""}

The response contains a token, a link-share JWT.

  1. Confirm v1 blocks it (the fixed behavior). With that token:
GET /api/v1/projects/<id>/projectusers
Authorization: Bearer <link_share_token>

→ rejected: the token isn't a user token.

  1. Now the vulnerable v2 endpoints, same token:
GET /api/v2/projects/<id>/users/search
Authorization: Bearer <link_share_token>

→ 200, full list of everyone with access to the project and its parents (id, username, name).

GET /api/v2/users?q=admin
Authorization: Bearer <link_share_token>

→ 200, a non-empty result confirms the username exists on the instance. Iterate q over a wordlist to enumerate accounts.

Impact

Information disclosure. A link share is a low-trust credential meant to expose one project's contents; here it also exposes the membership of that project's parents and lets the holder probe for any username across the whole instance. Since share links are often forwarded or semi-public, this hands an untrusted recipient a map of internal users and a username-validation oracle useful for phishing and credential stuffing. No account is required beyond possessing a share link. Emails are not exposed.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.vikunja.io/api
< 2.6.0
2.6.0
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 → 2.6.0

go
go get code.vikunja.io/api@v2.6.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

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