VulnerabilityPublished 2 Aug 2026Updated 3 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-68582: vikunja · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects vikunjaSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical : upgrade to 2.4.0 as a priority.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 08:20 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.4.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: High
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
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 2 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, 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 to 2.4.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
go-vikunjavikunja	Affected >=0.24.0 <2.4.0	Fixed in 2.4.0
Gogithub.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`pkg:golang/github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja`Other threats	Affected =0.24.0 <=2.3.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Vikunja version 2.4.0. Users should upgrade to version 2.4.0 or later to remediate this vulnerability.

Description

## Summary The task-collection endpoint `GET /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/tasks` loads the requested project view straight from the URL path without verifying the caller is authorized for it. For a **link-share token**, the task query is correctly pinned to the share's own project, but the *view* is taken from the attacker-controlled path and never re-validated against the share. A holder of a share link to **any** project can therefore point the endpoint at any other tenant's kanban view and receive that view's bucket records — bucket titles plus the full `created_by` user object (username, name, id) — for every view in the instance. The same missing pre-authorization view load also yields a project/view-ID existence oracle (404 vs. non-404) usable by link shares and ordinary authenticated users alike. ## Details Root cause is in `TaskCollection.ReadAll` (`pkg/models/task_collection.go`). 1. The view is resolved from the URL params before any permission check: ```go // pkg/models/task_collection.go (ReadAll) if tf.ProjectViewID != 0 { view, err = GetProjectViewByIDAndProject(s, tf.ProjectViewID, tf.ProjectID) // (URL params) ... } ``` `GetProjectViewByIDAndProject` (`pkg/models/project_view.go`) filters only on `WHERE id = ? AND project_id = ?` — it performs no authorization. A valid `(project, view)` pair returns the view; an invalid pair returns `ErrProjectViewDoesNotExist` (HTTP 404). 2. For a link-share caller, the code pins the *task* scope to the token's own project but reuses the attacker-supplied `view`: ```go shareAuth, is := a.(*LinkSharing) if is { project, err := GetProjectSimpleByID(s, shareAuth.ProjectID) // token's project ... return getTaskOrTasksInBuckets(s, a, []*Project{project}, view, opts, filteringForBucket, tf.forceFlatTasks) // `view` is the foreign, attacker-controlled view — never validated against shareAuth.ProjectID } ``` 3. `getTaskOrTasksInBuckets` → `GetTasksInBucketsForView` (`pkg/models/kanban.go`) reads the buckets of that foreign view directly: ```go err = s.Where("project_view_id = ?", view.ID).OrderBy("position").Find(&buckets) ... users, err := getUsersOrLinkSharesFromIDs(s, userIDs) // resolves each bucket's created_by ``` Each returned `Bucket` serializes `CreatedBy *user.User` as `json:"created_by"` (`pkg/models/kanban.go`), exposing the creating user's username, name, and id. The normal (non-share) path is protected because it runs `getRelevantProjectsFromCollection`, which calls `project.CanRead` on the URL project and returns 403 before any bucket data is produced. Only the `LinkSharing` branch skips that gate, which is why the bucket disclosure is link-share-specific. `ReadAllWeb` (`pkg/web/handler/read_all.go`) performs no permission check of its own, so all authorization for this endpoint lives inside `ReadAll`. Scope of the leak (verified against fixtures): the *tasks* returned inside the buckets are still constrained to the share's own project (`getRawTasksForProjects` filters `tasks.project_id IN opts.projectIDs`, derived from the share's project). So victim task **contents do not leak**; what leaks is the foreign view's bucket structure and, critically, the `created_by` user identities of arbitrary buckets instance-wide. Introduced in v0.24.0 by the per-view kanban feature (`feat(views)!: return tasks in buckets by view`), which added the `views/{view}/tasks` endpoint and the foreign-view bucket load. The link-share branch predates it, but the two only combine into this bug from v0.24.0 onward. ## Impact A holder of a link-share token to any single project (link shares are designed to be handed out, often semi-publicly) can: - **Enumerate all project and view IDs instance-wide.** IDs are sequential auto-increment integers; an invalid `(project, view)` pair returns 404 while a valid one returns 200, giving a reliable existence oracle across all tenants. - **Disclose the `created_by` user of any kanban view's buckets** — username, display name, and user id. Because Vikunja auto-creates a default project with a Kanban view for every user, iterating view IDs enumerates usernames and user IDs for essentially every account on the instance. - **Disclose bucket titles** of every kanban view in the instance. This is a cross-tenant broken-object-level-authorization bypass. It does not disclose victim task contents through this path, but instance-wide username/user-id enumeration plus kanban structure disclosure is a meaningful PII and reconnaissance exposure that defeats the tenant isolation the permission model is meant to enforce. The ID-enumeration oracle additionally works for any ordinary authenticated user (invalid combo → 404 vs. inaccessible combo → 403), because the view is loaded before the `CanRead` check. ## Proof of Concept Prerequisites: link sharing enabled (default), a share link to any project (call it project A), and any second project B (e.g. another tenant's) with a kanban view V_B. 1. Au

Impact

An attacker with any project share link can access sensitive metadata from other tenants, including kanban bucket titles and user identity information, across all views in the instance. This leads to unauthorized information disclosure. However, actual task content remains protected and is not exposed. The vulnerability also allows attackers to confirm the existence of project/view IDs, which could aid further reconnaissance.

Summary

The vulnerability in Vikunja (CVE-2026-68582) affects versions >=0.24.0 and <=2.3.0. The task-collection endpoint (GET /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/tasks) loads the requested project view from the URL path without verifying authorization. While link-share tokens restrict task scope to their own project, the view parameter is attacker-controlled and not re-validated, allowing unauthorized reading of other tenants' kanban bucket titles and full created_by user objects (username, name, id). Additionally, the missing pre-authorization check creates a project/view-ID existence oracle via differing 404 responses. Task contents themselves are not disclosed. The issue was fixed in version 2.4.0.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Aug 2026, 14:15 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats