GHSA-vpjw-wf5h-cgpq CVE-2026-72804 GO-2026-6407
SiYuan: Graph endpoints omit the publish-password tier: anonymous readers receive block-level content of password-protected documents
- Severity
- 9.2 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.43%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- Fix
0.0.0-20260724091654-82e9ded423e4- Upgrade github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel to this version or later
Description
CVE: This vulnerability corresponds to CVE-2026-72804.
Summary
getGraph and getLocalGraph filter reader sessions against the visibility tier only and never check the publish password. Password-protected documents are Visible = true, so their graph nodes survive the filter and graph nodes are block-level and carry the block's actual content. An anonymous reader who has never supplied a document's password can therefore retrieve that document's per-block content and its reference/backlink topology. Both endpoints are CheckAuth-only, so they are reachable by the publish RoleReader token and by the anonymous account when Publish.Auth.Enable is false.
Details
Both handlers filter with the invisible-tier set only:
publishIgnore := model.GetInvisiblePublishAccess(publishAccess) // Visible tier ONLY
nodes, links = model.FilterGraphByPublishIgnore(publishIgnore, nodes, links)
FilterGraphByPublishIgnore (kernel/model/publish_access.go:849) drops a node only when !CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore(node.Box, node.Path, publishIgnore). There is no password evaluation anywhere in the graph code grepping graph.go for CheckPublishAuthCookie or password returns nothing.
Because password-protected documents are Visible = true, their nodes pass the filter unchanged.
The nodes carry content, not just titles. genTreeNodes emits one node per block, and nodeTitleLabel sets node.Title = node.Label = block.Content (kernel/model/graph.go:673-678). So each surviving node exposes the block's text.
This is materially broader than the by-design listing behaviour: listDocsByPath intentionally exposes protected document titles (protected means "publicly visible, password required to access"), but the graph endpoints expose per-block content and the full link/reference topology, which listing never does.
Verified at origin/master: FilterGraphByPublishIgnore contains only the CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore call; graph.go contains no password check; both routes are registered CheckAuth without CheckAdminRole.
Proof of Concept
Precondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808); anonymous when Publish.Auth.Enable is false, otherwise any publish reader account. A document is marked protected (visible, password set) and contains blocks with distinctive content. No password is supplied in any request below.
Targeted: one protected document's content and reference structure:
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/graph/getLocalGraph
{"id":"<PROTECTED_DOC_ID>"}
Returns nodes whose Title/Label contain the protected document's per-block content, plus its links/backlinks.
Workspace-wide: every protected document:
POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/graph/getGraph
{}
Returns block-level nodes for every protected document in the workspace, together with the complete link graph.
Control: requesting the same document through the normal content path returns the password placeholder confirming the password gate is enforced elsewhere and omitted here.
Impact
An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish RoleReader can read the block-level content of every password-protected document in the workspace, plus the full reference/backlink topology, without ever supplying a password. This defeats the publish-password control for the graph subsystem. Confidentiality-only, no modification.
Suggested fix
Extend the graph filter to evaluate the password tier in addition to visibility: in FilterGraphByPublishIgnore, drop a node unless the document's publish password is unset or the caller presents a valid publish-auth cookie for it (password == "" || CheckPublishAuthCookie(...)), matching the sibling filters that enforce both tiers. Consider also excluding block content from node Title/Label for reader sessions, so the graph conveys structure without document text.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel | < 0.0.0-20260724091654-82e9ded423e4 |
0.0.0-20260724091654-82e9ded423e4 |
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.
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel Go → 0.0.0-20260724091654-82e9ded423e4
- go
go get github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel@v0.0.0-20260724091654-82e9ded423e4 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 9.2
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 8.6
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- 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-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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-xp3q-r38w-vgqm SiYuan: The publish filter for local storage returns the administrator's entire storage map with only three keys sanitized | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-9cqf-hhrq-7v45 SiYuan: getAttributeViewSearchTarget returns database row content to anonymous readers with no publish-access check, reopening the class closed one day earlier at the adjacent route | High | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-57v5-wqx3-cgj4 SiYuan: Database view structure (all view names, layout types and per-field visibility) is returned to anonymous readers by /api/av/getAttributeViewFieldViews | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-4wwp-f6gw-6qm5 SiYuan: TLS Private Keys Readable via getFile (Incomplete Blocklist) | High | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-3cm4-ccvw-6xr6 SiYuan: /history/*path and /repo/diff/*path potentially exposing historical snapshots of data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json and data/templates/* | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-x8gv-g2g3-65fj SiYuan Agent Tools SSRF via DNS-Rebinding TOCTOU (Bypass of CheckHostSSRF) | High | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-p23f-cm6q-2qp8 SiYuan MCP asset.upload Reads Arbitrary Absolute File Paths (Workspace Boundary Bypass) | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
| GHSA-rpx2-p6hp-x5gj SiYuan: Missing consistency check between packageName and repoURL/repoHash in bazaar package install allows overwriting an existing, trusted plugin | Medium | Also affects github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel |
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