VulnerabilityPublished 10 Apr 2026Updated 13 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-35597: vikunja · Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts

Affects vikunjaSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 2.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.3.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 10 Apr 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 2.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
go-vikunjavikunja	Affected <2.3.0	Fixed in 2.3.0
Gogithub.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`pkg:golang/github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`Other threats	Affected <2.3.0	Fixed in 2.3.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to vikunja version 2.3.0 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. Patch status is not explicitly stated in the vendor advisory, but the fix is included in version 2.3.0. Until upgraded, be aware that the TOTP lockout mechanism is ineffective in affected versions.

Description

Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to 2.3.0, the TOTP failed-attempt lockout mechanism is non-functional due to a database transaction handling bug. When a TOTP validation fails, the login handler in pkg/routes/api/v1/login.go calls HandleFailedTOTPAuth and then unconditionally rolls back. HandleFailedTOTPAuth in pkg/user/totp.go uses an in-memory counter (key-value store) to track failed attempts. When the counter reaches 10, it calls user.SetStatus(s, StatusAccountLocked) on the same database session s. Because the login handler always rolls back after a TOTP failure, the StatusAccountLocked write is undone. The in-memory counter correctly increments past 10, so the lockout code executes on every subsequent attempt, but the database write is rolled back every time. This allows unlimited brute-force attempts against TOTP codes. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.3.0.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to perform unlimited brute-force attempts against TOTP codes because the account lockout status is never persisted due to transaction rollback. This can lead to unauthorized access if TOTP codes are guessed correctly. The CVSS score of 5.9 (medium severity) reflects a network attack vector with high impact on confidentiality but no impact on integrity or availability.

Summary

The vulnerability in go-vikunja vikunja (CVE-2026-35597) arises from improper restriction of excessive authentication attempts (CWE-307). Specifically, the TOTP failed-attempt lockout mechanism fails because the login handler rolls back the database transaction after a failed TOTP validation, undoing the account lockout status update. Although an in-memory counter tracks failed attempts and triggers lockout logic after 10 failures, the rollback prevents the lockout status from persisting in the database, enabling unlimited brute-force attempts on TOTP codes. This flaw affects versions prior to 2.3.0 and is resolved in version 2.3.0.

CWE-307Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
Architecture and Design
Common protection mechanisms include: Disconnecting the user after a small number of failed attempts; Implementing a timeout; Locking out a targeted account; Requiring a computational task on the user's part.
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
Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Dictionary-based Password Attack (opens in a new tab)
Password Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Password Spraying (opens in a new tab)
Credential Stuffing (opens in a new tab)
Use of Known Kerberos Credentials (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 18 Apr 2026, 14:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-307

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats