VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-33312: vikunja · Incorrect Authorization

Affects vikunjaSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.2.0 when convenient.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 11:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.0

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
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 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 1 Nov 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 vikunja and github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja to 2.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
go-vikunjavikunja	Affected >=0.20.2 <2.2.0	Fixed in 2.2.0
Gogithub.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`pkg:golang/github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`Other threats	Affected >=0.20.2 <2.2.0	Fixed in 2.2.0

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

AI-suggested

Organizations using Vikunja versions between 0.20.2 and 2.2.0 should upgrade to version 2.2.0 or later, where the authorization check has been corrected to require update permissions for deleting project background images. Until upgrading is possible, administrators should restrict read access to trusted users only, minimizing the risk of unauthorized deletions. Additionally, monitoring API usage logs for unusual DELETE requests to the /api/v1/projects/:project/background endpoint can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Implementing access control reviews and audits to ensure that users have appropriate permissions aligned with their roles will further reduce risk. If custom deployments exist, consider applying a temporary patch or modifying the authorization logic to enforce CanUpdate checks on the affected endpoint. Finally, educating users about the importance of permission management and monitoring changes to project assets can help maintain operational integrity.

Description

CVE-2026-33312 is an authorization vulnerability in the open-source task management platform Vikunja, affecting versions from 0.20.2 up to but not including 2.2.0. The flaw exists in the DELETE /api/v1/projects/:project/background endpoint, which incorrectly checks for read permissions (CanRead) instead of update permissions (CanUpdate). This allows any user with read-only access to permanently delete a project's background image, potentially impacting project presentation and user experience. The vulnerability does not require user interaction or authentication beyond read access, and no known exploits are currently reported in the wild. The issue is fixed in version 2.2.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the unauthorized deletion of project background images by users who only have read access. While this does not compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of core project data or the system itself, it can negatively affect the user experience and visual presentation of projects. In collaborative environments, this could lead to confusion or dissatisfaction among users, especially if background images are used for branding or organizational purposes. Since the vulnerability requires only read access, any user with such permissions can exploit it, potentially increasing the risk in environments with many read-only users. However, the scope of damage is limited and does not extend to critical data or system compromise. There are no known exploits in the wild, which reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability should still be addressed to maintain proper authorization controls and prevent misuse.

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 27 Mar 2026, 19:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats