Skip to content

GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg CVE-2026-52825

Kimai has Improper Authorization in Team Member and Team Activity Assignment APIs Which Allows Expansion of Team Scope Beyond Authorized Visibility

Medium Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.45%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.03% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-285 Improper Authorization
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
2.58.0
Upgrade kimai/kimai to this version or later

Description

Summary

Kimai contains an authenticated improper authorization vulnerability in Team-related assignment APIs. A Teamlead who can edit their own team can use backend API endpoints to add users or activities that fall outside their intended visible or manageable scope, even when the frontend correctly hides those targets.

This affects both team member assignment and team activity assignment. The issue is caused by treating "may edit this team" as equivalent to "may attach any referenced object to this team", without performing a second authorization check on the target user or activity.

Details

The issue affects at least the following API routes:

  • POST /api/teams/{id}/members/{userId}
  • POST /api/teams/{id}/activities/{activityId}

In both cases, the backend checks whether the caller may edit the Team, but it does not verify whether the referenced User or Activity falls inside the caller's allowed management scope.

For team member assignment, the frontend form correctly limits the visible user choices. In src/Form/TeamEditForm.php, the team edit form uses UserType:

$builder->add('users', UserType::class, [
    'label' => 'add_user.label',
    'help' => 'team.add_user.help',
    'mapped' => false,
    'multiple' => false,
    'expanded' => false,
    'required' => false,
    'ignore_users' => $team !== null ? $team->getUsers() : []
]);

In src/Form/Type/UserType.php, the user selector is built from UserRepository::getQueryBuilderForFormType():

$query = new UserFormTypeQuery();
$query->setUser($options['user']);

$qb = $this->userRepository->getQueryBuilderForFormType($query);
$users = $qb->getQuery()->getResult();

And in src/Repository/UserRepository.php, Teamlead-visible candidates are limited to team members from teams they lead:

if (null !== $user && $user->isTeamlead()) {
    $userIds = [];
    foreach ($user->getTeams() as $team) {
        if ($team->isTeamlead($user)) {
            foreach ($team->getUsers() as $teamMember) {
                $userIds[] = $teamMember->getId();
            }
        }
    }
    $userIds = array_unique($userIds);
    $qb->setParameter('teamMember', $userIds);
    $or->add($qb->expr()->in('u.id', ':teamMember'));
}

However, the actual member-assignment API does not reuse that restriction. In src/API/TeamController.php:

#[IsGranted('edit', 'team')]
#[Route(methods: ['POST'], path: '/{id}/members/{userId}', name: 'post_team_member', requirements: ['id' => '\d+', 'userId' => '\d+'])]
public function postMemberAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: ['userId' => 'id'])] User $member): Response
{
    if ($member->isInTeam($team)) {
        throw new BadRequestHttpException('User is already member of the team');
    }

    $team->addUser($member);
    $this->teamService->saveTeam($team);
}

For activity assignment, the same pattern appears. In src/API/TeamController.php:

#[IsGranted('edit', 'team')]
#[Route(methods: ['POST'], path: '/{id}/activities/{activityId}', name: 'post_team_activity', requirements: ['id' => '\d+', 'activityId' => '\d+'])]
public function postActivityAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: ['activityId' => 'id'])] Activity $activity, ActivityRepository $activityRepository): Response
{
    if ($team->hasActivity($activity)) {
        throw new BadRequestHttpException('Team has already access to activity');
    }

    $team->addActivity($activity);
    $activityRepository->saveActivity($activity);
}

The Team voter only checks whether the current user may edit that team, not whether the referenced object is within the Teamlead's legitimate scope. In src/Voter/TeamVoter.php:

if (!$user->isAdmin() && !$user->isSuperAdmin() && !$user->isTeamleadOf($subject)) {
    return false;
}

return $this->permissionManager->hasRolePermission($user, $attribute . '_team');

For activities, this is especially risky because later authorization logic may trust the team assignment that was just written. In src/Security/RolePermissionManager.php:

public function checkTeamAccessActivity(Activity $activity, User $user): bool
{
    if ($activity->getProject() !== null && !$this->checkTeamAccessProject($activity->getProject(), $user)) {
        return false;
    }

    return $this->checkTeamAccess($activity->getTeams(), $user);
}

So once a Teamlead is able to write a new team/activity relation, later access-control decisions may treat that relation as legitimate input.

A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.

Impact

This vulnerability allows a Teamlead to use their own editable team as an expansion container for objects that should remain outside their authorized scope. In the validated member-assignment case, the attacker can forcibly add users who are not supposed to be manageable through that Teamlead's visible range. In the activity-assignment case, the attacker can attach activities that are outside the intended authorization boundary of the team.

Once such relations are written, downstream authorization, visibility, and business workflows may start treating them as legitimate. This can affect user scoping, team-based access control, customer/project/activity visibility, time-entry behavior, statistics, and reporting. The issue therefore breaks the trustworthiness of Team as a security isolation container.

Solution

Several new permission checks were added to src/API/TeamController.php -

  • Check if user can be accessed with #[IsGranted('access_user', 'member')] before adding as new team member
  • Check if customer can be seen with #[IsGranted('view', 'customer')] before a team is granted access to a customer
  • Check if project can be seen with #[IsGranted('view', 'project')] before a team is granted access to a project
  • Check if activity can be seen with #[IsGranted('view', 'activity')] before a team is granted access to an activity

See https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-xv4r-4885-gwpg for more information.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
kimai/kimai
< 2.58.0
2.58.0

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.

kimai/kimai Packagist → 2.58.0

composer
composer require kimai/kimai:^2.58.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
  • 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-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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-rw46-qg69-vg6h
Kimai: ExportTemplate CRUD Missing Authorization Check Allows Unauthorized TEAMLEAD Access
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-v8hx-4vx8-wc96
Kimai: Pre-2FA KIMAI_SESSION cookie grants full authenticated REST API access, bypassing TOTP
High Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-2xgg-2x8h-8xw4
Kimai: Improper Authorization in Project, Customer, and Activity Rate Edit Endpoints Allows Cross-Scope Rate Manipulation
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-jr9p-4h4j-6c58
Kimai: Default APP_SECRET in Docker Image Enables Cookie Forgery and Account Takeover
Critical Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-r8vr-m544-qh4h
Kimai: Login CSRF in the Timesheet Stop and Restart API Endpoints Allows Unauthorized State Changes
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-c6w6-57jj-62vh
Improper Authorization in Kimai Timesheet Restart and Duplicate Allows New Timesheets After Project Access Revocation
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-3q6q-26vg-v97x
Kimai: Improper Authorization Through Activity Creation with Preset Project Allows Creation Under Unauthorized Projects
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
GHSA-vrr2-g9gh-c3jc
Kimai: Timesheet PATCH/POST allows assigning to project outside user's team via query_builder OR-bypass
Medium Also affects kimai/kimai
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