VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2026Updated 14 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-72804: siyuan · Information Exposure

Affects siyuanSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.2 Critical : upgrade to 3.7.4 as a priority.

Data as of 8 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.2Critical

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.7.4

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: High
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent 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.
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 12 Aug 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 8 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 siyuan to 3.7.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
siyuan-notesiyuan	Affected <3.7.4	Fixed in 3.7.4

Description

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-72804](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72804). ### Summary `getGraph` and `getLocalGraph` filter reader sessions against the *visibility* tier only and never check the publish password. Password-protected documents are `Visible = true`, so their graph nodes survive the filter and graph nodes are block-level and carry the block's actual content. An anonymous reader who has never supplied a document's password can therefore retrieve that document's per-block content and its reference/backlink topology. Both endpoints are `CheckAuth`-only, so they are reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. ### Details Both handlers filter with the invisible-tier set only: ```go publishIgnore := model.GetInvisiblePublishAccess(publishAccess) // Visible tier ONLY nodes, links = model.FilterGraphByPublishIgnore(publishIgnore, nodes, links) ``` `FilterGraphByPublishIgnore` (`kernel/model/publish_access.go:849`) drops a node only when `!CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore(node.Box, node.Path, publishIgnore)`. There is no password evaluation anywhere in the graph code grepping `graph.go` for `CheckPublishAuthCookie` or `password` returns nothing. Because password-protected documents are `Visible = true`, their nodes pass the filter unchanged. **The nodes carry content, not just titles.** `genTreeNodes` emits one node per block, and `nodeTitleLabel` sets `node.Title = node.Label = block.Content` (`kernel/model/graph.go:673-678`). So each surviving node exposes the block's text. This is materially broader than the by-design listing behaviour: `listDocsByPath` intentionally exposes protected document *titles* (protected means "publicly visible, password required to access"), but the graph endpoints expose per-block *content* and the full link/reference topology, which listing never does. Verified at `origin/master`: `FilterGraphByPublishIgnore` contains only the `CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore` call; `graph.go` contains no password check; both routes are registered `CheckAuth` without `CheckAdminRole`. ### Proof of Concept Precondition: publish mode enabled (default port 6808); anonymous when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`, otherwise any publish reader account. A document is marked **protected** (visible, password set) and contains blocks with distinctive content. No password is supplied in any request below. **Targeted: one protected document's content and reference structure:** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/graph/getLocalGraph {"id":"<PROTECTED_DOC_ID>"} ``` Returns nodes whose `Title`/`Label` contain the protected document's per-block content, plus its links/backlinks. **Workspace-wide: every protected document:** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/graph/getGraph {} ``` Returns block-level nodes for every protected document in the workspace, together with the complete link graph. **Control:** requesting the same document through the normal content path returns the password placeholder confirming the password gate is enforced elsewhere and omitted here. ### Impact An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` can read the block-level content of every password-protected document in the workspace, plus the full reference/backlink topology, without ever supplying a password. This defeats the publish-password control for the graph subsystem. Confidentiality-only, no modification. ### Suggested fix Extend the graph filter to evaluate the password tier in addition to visibility: in `FilterGraphByPublishIgnore`, drop a node unless the document's publish password is unset or the caller presents a valid publish-auth cookie for it (`password == "" || CheckPublishAuthCookie(...)`), matching the sibling filters that enforce both tiers. Consider also excluding block content from node `Title`/`Label` for reader sessions, so the graph conveys structure without document text.

Impact

An attacker can access sensitive content of password-protected documents without authentication, potentially exposing confidential information and the document's internal structure. This unauthorized information disclosure could compromise user privacy and data confidentiality within affected SiYuan instances.

Summary

SiYuan versions prior to v3.7.4 fail to enforce password protection on certain API endpoints (getGraph and getLocalGraph). This flaw permits unauthenticated attackers to retrieve detailed content from password-protected documents, including block-level data and the entire reference topology, by calling these endpoints without providing any password. The vulnerability results from missing validation of the publish-password tier, leading to unauthorized information disclosure.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Aug 2026, 19:42 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats