VulnerabilityPublished 13 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30943: Forceu Gokapi · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Forceu GokapiSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium : upgrade to 2.2.4 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Gokapi and forceu/Gokapi to 2.2.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ForceuGokapi	Affected <2.2.4	Fixed in 2.2.4
GitHubforceu/Gokapi`pkg:github/forceu/Gokapi`Other threats	Affected <2.2.4	Fixed in 2.2.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should upgrade all Gokapi instances to version 2.2.4 or later, where the authorization check is properly enforced. Until upgrades can be applied, administrators should restrict UserPermListOtherUploads permissions to only trusted users and monitor file deletion activities closely. Implementing detailed audit logging for file operations can help detect suspicious deletions. Additionally, enforcing strong authentication mechanisms and regularly reviewing user permissions will reduce the risk of exploitation. Network-level controls such as segmentation and limiting access to the Gokapi server can further reduce exposure. Finally, educating users about the risks of privilege misuse and promptly revoking permissions for inactive or untrusted accounts will help contain potential abuse.

Description

Gokapi is a self-hosted file sharing server with automatic expiration and encryption support. Prior to 2.2.4, An insufficient authorization check in the file replace API allows a user with only list visibility permission (UserPermListOtherUploads) to delete another user's file by abusing the deleteNewFile flag, bypassing the requirement for UserPermDeleteOtherUploads. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.2.4.

Impact

This vulnerability primarily impacts the integrity of data stored on Gokapi servers by allowing unauthorized deletion of files owned by other users. Organizations relying on Gokapi for file sharing may face data loss or disruption of workflows if malicious or careless users exploit this flaw. Although confidentiality and availability remain unaffected, unauthorized deletions can lead to operational inefficiencies, potential data recovery costs, and loss of trust among users. In multi-tenant or collaborative environments, this could also result in internal conflicts or compliance issues if sensitive files are deleted without proper authorization. Since exploitation requires authenticated access with list visibility permissions, insider threats or compromised accounts pose the greatest risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks, especially in environments where Gokapi is widely deployed.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
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.
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Mar 2026, 19:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats