Skip to content

Vikunja: Link-share token reads any tenant's kanban buckets and enumerates usernames/IDs instance-wide (BOLA)

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 19, 2026 in go-vikunja/vikunja • Updated Oct 9, 2026

Package

gomod code.vikunja.io/api (Go)

Affected versions

>= 0.24.0, <= 2.3.0

Patched versions

2.4.0

Description

Summary

The task-collection endpoint GET /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/tasks loads the requested project view straight from the URL path without verifying the caller is authorized for it. For a link-share token, the task query is correctly pinned to the share's own project, but the view is taken from the attacker-controlled path and never re-validated against the share. A holder of a share link to any project can therefore point the endpoint at any other tenant's kanban view and receive that view's bucket records — bucket titles plus the full created_by user object (username, name, id) — for every view in the instance. The same missing pre-authorization view load also yields a project/view-ID existence oracle (404 vs. non-404) usable by link shares and ordinary authenticated users alike.

Details

Root cause is in TaskCollection.ReadAll (pkg/models/task_collection.go).

  1. The view is resolved from the URL params before any permission check:
// pkg/models/task_collection.go  (ReadAll)
if tf.ProjectViewID != 0 {
    view, err = GetProjectViewByIDAndProject(s, tf.ProjectViewID, tf.ProjectID) // (URL params)
    ...
}

GetProjectViewByIDAndProject (pkg/models/project_view.go) filters only on WHERE id = ? AND project_id = ? — it performs no authorization. A valid (project, view) pair returns the view; an invalid pair returns ErrProjectViewDoesNotExist (HTTP 404).

  1. For a link-share caller, the code pins the task scope to the token's own project but reuses the attacker-supplied view:
shareAuth, is := a.(*LinkSharing)
if is {
    project, err := GetProjectSimpleByID(s, shareAuth.ProjectID)   // token's project
    ...
    return getTaskOrTasksInBuckets(s, a, []*Project{project}, view, opts, filteringForBucket, tf.forceFlatTasks)
    // `view` is the foreign, attacker-controlled view — never validated against shareAuth.ProjectID
}
  1. getTaskOrTasksInBuckets → GetTasksInBucketsForView (pkg/models/kanban.go) reads the buckets of that foreign view directly:
err = s.Where("project_view_id = ?", view.ID).OrderBy("position").Find(&buckets)
...
users, err := getUsersOrLinkSharesFromIDs(s, userIDs) // resolves each bucket's created_by

Each returned Bucket serializes CreatedBy *user.User as json:"created_by" (pkg/models/kanban.go), exposing the creating user's username, name, and id.

The normal (non-share) path is protected because it runs getRelevantProjectsFromCollection, which calls project.CanRead on the URL project and returns 403 before any bucket data is produced. Only the LinkSharing branch skips that gate, which is why the bucket disclosure is link-share-specific. ReadAllWeb (pkg/web/handler/read_all.go) performs no permission check of its own, so all authorization for this endpoint lives inside ReadAll.

Scope of the leak (verified against fixtures): the tasks returned inside the buckets are still constrained to the share's own project (getRawTasksForProjects filters tasks.project_id IN opts.projectIDs, derived from the share's project). So victim task contents do not leak; what leaks is the foreign view's bucket structure and, critically, the created_by user identities of arbitrary buckets instance-wide.

Introduced in v0.24.0 by the per-view kanban feature (feat(views)!: return tasks in buckets by view), which added the views/{view}/tasks endpoint and the foreign-view bucket load. The link-share branch predates it, but the two only combine into this bug from v0.24.0 onward.

Impact

A holder of a link-share token to any single project (link shares are designed to be handed out, often semi-publicly) can:

  • Enumerate all project and view IDs instance-wide. IDs are sequential auto-increment integers; an invalid (project, view) pair returns 404 while a valid one returns 200, giving a reliable existence oracle across all tenants.
  • Disclose the created_by user of any kanban view's buckets — username, display name, and user id. Because Vikunja auto-creates a default project with a Kanban view for every user, iterating view IDs enumerates usernames and user IDs for essentially every account on the instance.
  • Disclose bucket titles of every kanban view in the instance.

This is a cross-tenant broken-object-level-authorization bypass. It does not disclose victim task contents through this path, but instance-wide username/user-id enumeration plus kanban structure disclosure is a meaningful PII and reconnaissance exposure that defeats the tenant isolation the permission model is meant to enforce. The ID-enumeration oracle additionally works for any ordinary authenticated user (invalid combo → 404 vs. inaccessible combo → 403), because the view is loaded before the CanRead check.

Proof of Concept

Prerequisites: link sharing enabled (default), a share link to any project (call it project A), and any second project B (e.g. another tenant's) with a kanban view V_B.

  1. Authenticate the share link to obtain a share JWT:
    POST /api/v1/shares/{shareHash}/auth
  2. Using that token, request a foreign kanban view's tasks:
    GET /api/v1/projects/{B}/views/{V_B}/tasks
  3. The 200 response is a list of Bucket objects belonging to view V_B — each with title and a populated created_by (username, name, id) — even though the token has no relationship to project B.
  4. Iterate {B}/{V_B} over sequential integers: valid pairs return bucket lists (harvest usernames/ids), invalid pairs return 404.

Verified locally against the model fixtures: a LinkSharing{ProjectID: 1} (project 1 owned by user 1) calling TaskCollection{ProjectID: 2, ProjectViewID: 8}.ReadAll (project 2 owned by user 3) returns project 2's buckets ("testbucket4 - other project", "testbucket40") with their created_by user objects populated, and no error — while a nonexistent view id returns ErrProjectViewDoesNotExist.

Recommended Fix

In TaskCollection.ReadAll, before the view is loaded, pin the requested project to the link share's own project so any foreign view resolves to a 404 instead of leaking:

if shareAuth, is := a.(*LinkSharing); is {
    tf.ProjectID = shareAuth.ProjectID
}

This is consistent with the existing behavior that already forces the task query to shareAuth.ProjectID, and it closes both the bucket disclosure and the share-token half of the enumeration oracle. As defence-in-depth, resolve the view's authorization against the authenticated caller for every auth type (not just link shares), so the endpoint never loads a view the caller cannot read — closing the 404-vs-403 existence oracle for ordinary users as well.

References

@kolaente kolaente published to go-vikunja/vikunja Jul 19, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 9, 2026
Reviewed Oct 9, 2026
Last updated Oct 9, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(27th percentile)

Weaknesses

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. Learn more on MITRE.

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-68582

GHSA ID

GHSA-rj9j-8772-4h6c

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.