VulnerabilityPublished 24 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-33678: vikunja · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects vikunjaSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 2.2.1 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 24 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 30 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 vikunja and github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja to 2.2.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
go-vikunjavikunja	Affected <2.2.1	Fixed in 2.2.1
Gogithub.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`pkg:golang/github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`Other threats	Affected <2.2.1	Fixed in 2.2.1

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade Vikunja to version 2.2.1 or later, where the vulnerability is patched by enforcing proper authorization checks that bind attachment access to the correct task context. Until upgrading, organizations should restrict access to the Vikunja instance to trusted users only and monitor attachment access logs for suspicious activity, such as unusual attachment ID requests or deletion patterns. Implement network-level access controls to limit exposure of the platform to internal or VPN-only access. Additionally, review and harden application-level permissions and consider implementing rate limiting or anomaly detection to prevent enumeration of attachment IDs. Regularly audit user permissions and attachment ownership to detect inconsistencies. Finally, educate users about the risk of sharing authentication credentials, as exploitation requires authenticated access.

Description

Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to version 2.2.1, `TaskAttachment.ReadOne()` queries attachments by ID only (`WHERE id = ?`), ignoring the task ID from the URL path. The permission check in `CanRead()` validates access to the task specified in the URL, but `ReadOne()` loads a different attachment that may belong to a task in another project. This allows any authenticated user to download or delete any attachment in the system by providing their own accessible task ID with a target attachment ID. Attachment IDs are sequential integers, making enumeration trivial. Version 2.2.1 patches the issue.

Impact

This vulnerability allows authenticated users to bypass authorization controls and access or delete attachments belonging to other users or projects. The impact includes unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or confidential information contained in attachments, potentially leading to data leaks or privacy violations. Additionally, attackers can delete attachments, causing data loss and disrupting project workflows. Since attachments may contain critical documents or proprietary information, this breach can harm organizational confidentiality and integrity. The vulnerability does not affect system availability directly but can undermine trust in the platform. Organizations using vulnerable versions of Vikunja face increased risk of insider threats or lateral movement attacks by malicious or compromised users. The ease of exploitation and trivial enumeration of attachment IDs exacerbate the threat, making it a high-risk vulnerability for any deployment with multiple users or projects.

CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (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 24 Mar 2026, 16:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats