VulnerabilityPublished 4 May 2026

CVE-2026-41572: enchant97 note-mark · Improper Authorization

Affects enchant97 note-markSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 0.19.3 when convenient.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 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 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.19.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 4 May 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 note-mark and enchant97/note-mark to 0.19.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
enchant97note-mark	Affected <0.19.3	Fixed in 0.19.3
GitHubenchant97/note-mark`pkg:github/enchant97/note-mark`Other threats	Affected <0.19.3	Fixed in 0.19.3

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability has been patched in note-mark version 0.19.3. Users should upgrade to version 0.19.3 or later to remediate this issue. No other mitigation is indicated or required.

Description

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.3, after a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw "JOIN books ..." clauses used by the note and asset queries. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.3.

Impact

An attacker or unauthenticated user who knows the note ID or slug path can access notes and uploaded assets from soft-deleted public books, violating data confidentiality. There is no impact on integrity or availability. The exposure is limited to read-only access of data that should have been inaccessible after soft deletion.

Summary

Note-mark versions before 0.19.3 suffer from an improper authorization vulnerability (CWE-285) where soft-deleted public books' notes and assets remain accessible to unauthenticated users. The root cause is that GORM's soft-delete scope is not applied to raw SQL JOIN queries used in note and asset retrieval, allowing continued access via endpoints such as /api/notes/{id} and slug URLs. This enables unauthorized read access to content that should be logically deleted. The vulnerability has been addressed in note-mark version 0.19.3.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (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 4 May 2026, 18:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats