Threats tagged 'go'

SiYuan versions before v3.7.3 contain critical SQL injection vulnerabilities in the fullTextSearchAssetContent endpoint. These vulnerabilities allow unauthenticated users and publish RoleReader tokens to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the asset-content database. The flaws involve unescaped method parameters and REGEXP clauses, enabling attackers to read, modify, or delete data across notebooks. This advisory is a duplicate and has been withdrawn in favor of GHSA-fph3-ghq9-vw66. No patch links are provided in this data.

SiYuan versions up to 3.7.2 have an information disclosure vulnerability in certain getHeading*Transaction endpoints. These endpoints return rendered block DOM content without verifying publish-access permissions. This allows anonymous users or those with limited publish RoleReader tokens to access full rendered content of documents that are publish-disabled and should be restricted.

SiYuan versions before v3.7.3 have a metadata disclosure vulnerability in the /api/block/getBlockInfo endpoint. This endpoint returns document root metadata such as title, notebook, path, root ID, and icon for documents that are marked as publish-forbidden without enforcing publish-access checks. As a result, anonymous users or users with publish RoleReader tokens can access metadata for documents that should be restricted. This advisory is a duplicate and has been withdrawn in favor of GHSA-pm3w-vxp9-ccwc.

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-69086](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69086). ### Summary Four attribute-view read endpoints build a filesystem path from a caller-controlled `id`/`avID` and read it without confining the result to the attribute-view storage directory (`DataDir/storage/av/`). On the load (file-exists) code path there is no boundary check, so an `avID` containing `../` segments escapes `storage/av/` and causes the kernel to read a `.json` file elsewhere in the workspace. The endpoints require only `CheckAuth`, which the publish service's `RoleReader` token satisfies; when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false` the publish proxy uses the anonymous account, making the surface reachable with no credentials. ### Details Affected endpoints (all gated by `CheckAuth` only, no `CheckAdminRole`): - `POST /api/av/renderAttributeView` &nbsp;→ `arg["id"]` - `POST /api/av/getAttributeViewKeysByID` → `arg["avID"]` - `POST /api/av/getAttributeViewKeys` &nbsp;→ `arg["id"]` - `POST /api/av/getCurrentAttrViewImages` → `arg["id"]` In `model.RenderAttributeView` (`model/attribute_view_render.go`), the only identifier guard `ast.IsNodeIDPattern(avID)` sits **inside** the `if !filelock.IsExist(existPath)` (create) branch: ```go existPath = GetAttributeViewDataPath(avID) // path built from avID, no check if !filelock.IsExist(existPath) { // NOT-EXIST / CREATE branch if !createIfNotExist { return // NotFound } if !ast.IsNodeIDPattern(avID) { // <-- ONLY id guard, create branch only return ErrInvalidID } // ... create ... } attrView, err = av.ParseAttributeView(avID) // LOAD runs unconditionally ``` When the traversal `avID` resolves to a file that already exists, the `!filelock.IsExist(...)` condition is `false`, the entire block (including the line with `ast.IsNodeIDPattern`) is skipped, and control falls straight through to `av.ParseAttributeView(avID)`. That function rebuilds the path via `filepath.Join(DataDir, "storage", "av", avID+".json")` and calls `filelock.ReadFile` with no `filepath.Rel` / `IsSubPath` / `..` rejection: ```go // av.ParseAttributeView -> attributeViewDataPathByBox / GetAttributeViewDataPath avJSONPath = filepath.Join(DataDir, "storage", "av", avID+".json") // no boundary check // -> parseAttributeViewByPathInBox(avJSONPath, boxID) data, _ = filelock.ReadFile(avJSONPath) // SINK ``` `filepath.Join` cleans the path but does **not** reject `..` segments, so it provides no containment. The three `getAttributeView*` endpoints call `ParseAttributeView` with no create branch at all, so they never even reach the `ast.IsNodeIDPattern` check same defect, same auth tier. The root cause is that identifier validation is placed on a single code branch rather than confining the load to the AV base directory, so the load path reads a caller-controlled location. ### PoC **Precondition:** publish mode enabled (default port `6808`); reachable by a `RoleReader` publish token, or anonymously when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. A request to `/api/av/renderAttributeView` with an `id` composed of `../` path segments that resolves to an existing `.json` file outside `DataDir/storage/av/` causes that file to be read and parsed instead of being rejected, because the identifier validation is only reached on the not-exist/create branch. I have withheld the exact encoded `id` value from this draft to avoid publishing a live traversal against internet-exposed publish instances. I'm happy to provide the precise value and a screenshot privately in this thread on request. ### Impact An authenticated publish `RoleReader` or an anonymous client when publish auth is disabled can cause the kernel to read `.json` files outside the attribute-view directory. Because the loaded file is unmarshalled into the attribute-view structure, the reliable primitives are: 1. Disclosure of attribute-view (database) content from other scopes/notebooks the reader is not authorized to see. 2. A `.json`-path existence oracle for arbitrary workspace locations. Files not conforming to the AV schema are read but reflect little content, and the `.json` suffix is force-appended, so this is **not** a general arbitrary-file read. No admin role, CSRF token, or write permission is required. ### Suggested fix Validate `avID` with `ast.IsNodeIDPattern` before path construction on **all** branches (move it ahead of `FindAttributeViewPath` / `GetAttributeViewDataPath`), or preferably, so every caller inherits it confine at the sink: in `attributeViewDataPathByBox` / `GetAttributeViewDataPath`, compute the joined path and reject it unless `filepath.Rel(avBaseDir, cleaned)` stays within `avBaseDir` (no leading `..`). Sink-side confinement also covers the three `getAttributeView*` endpoints that never reach the create-branch guard.

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-69084](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69084). ### Summary The `/api/search/searchEmbedBlock` endpoint passes a client-supplied SQL statement verbatim to the database with no validation. The endpoint is gated by `CheckAuth` only reachable by the publish RoleReader token, and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. The statement runs on the main read-write `siyuan.db` handle through a driver that executes stacked statements, with no single-statement or read-only guard. An unauthenticated request can therefore execute arbitrary SQL reading and writing content across all cleartext notebooks. Unlike SQL injection into a fixed query, this endpoint accepts a full SQL statement by design and simply fails to restrict who may call it or what the statement may do. ### Details Data flow verbatim, unvalidated: - `searchEmbedBlock` (`kernel/api/search.go`): `stmt := arg["stmt"].(string)` passed directly to `model.SearchEmbedBlock(stmt, …)`. No validation. - `SearchEmbedBlock` → `SearchEmbedBlockInBox` → `sql.SelectBlocksRawStmtNoParse(stmt, …)` → `selectBlocksRawStmt` → `query(stmt)`. - `query()` (`kernel/sql/database.go`) calls `db.Query(stmt)` on the global `siyuan.db` handle. **Missing guards.** The comparable endpoints enforce restrictions this one omits: - `/api/query/sql` runs `CheckSingleStatement` (all modes) and `CheckReadonlyStatement` (readonly mode) and is route-gated `CheckAuth + CheckAdminRole + CheckReadonly`. - `fullTextSearchBlock` rejects the SQL search method for non-admins (`if method == 2 && !IsAdminRoleContext(c)`). `searchEmbedBlock` has none of these, no statement check, no read-only check, no admin gate. **Route/auth tier.** `router.go`: `Handle("POST", "/api/search/searchEmbedBlock", model.CheckAuth, searchEmbedBlock)`, `CheckAuth` only. `CheckAuth` admits `RoleReader`, and the publish proxy forwards port-6808 traffic with a Reader JWT (anonymous account when publish auth is disabled). Anonymous/reader reachable. **Handle/stacking.** `query()` uses the global `siyuan.db` handle, the same read-write handle behind the accepted `searchDocs` finding. Driver is the vendored `88250/go-sqlite3` (mattn fork), whose connection `query` loops over `;`-separated statements, so stacked statements execute for their side effects. The DSN sets no `mode=ro` / `_query_only`, so the handle is read-write; `ATTACH` is available. **Post-hoc filter does not bound the statement.** `FilterEmbedBlocksByPublishAccess` runs on the returned slice *after* `query()` has executed. It filters rows; it cannot constrain what the statement did. Any write or `ATTACH` side effect has already occurred before the filter runs. It is not a security boundary for this sink. **Scope.** The main `blocks`/DB handle spans every opened cleartext notebook. Encrypted notebooks use separate per-box databases and are excluded. ### Impact An unauthenticated request (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` executes arbitrary SQL on the main read-write database. This permits cross-notebook read disclosure of document content, and via the read-write handle and statement stacking, modification of database content and `ATTACH`-reachable files. No admin role, CSRF token, or write permission through the normal API is required. Encrypted notebooks are not exposed. Code execution is not reachable in the default build (no `load_extension`). ### PoC Steps 1. Build the kernel image from pinned HEAD `docker build -f D:/bb/zitadel/chatto/siyuan/Dockerfile.poc -t siyuan-head D:/bb/zitadel/chatto/siyuan` 2. Run fresh, workspace mounted to the host ``` docker rm -f siyuan-poc 2>nul docker run -d --name siyuan-poc -p 6806:6806 -p 6808:6808 -v D:/bb/siyuan:/siyuan/workspace siyuan-head serve --accessAuthCode=1234567 --port=6806 ``` Confirm it booted (version string back, not Cobra help): ``` docker logs siyuan-poc curl -s http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/system/version ``` 3. Grab the admin API token from the host file. Use that value wherever TOKEN appears below (yours was g4wj3r04ntobe9m4). 4. Turn on the reader surface: publish on 6808, Basic Auth OFF `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/setting/setPublish -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Authorization: Token TOKEN" -d "{\"enable\":true,\"port\":6808,\"auth\":{\"enable\":false,\"accounts\":[]}}"` Must return "data":{"port":6808,...} (non-zero port = bound OK). Port 6808, not 6806. 5. THE PROOF: anonymous reader on 6808, no token (the differential) Guarded sibling rejects reader SQL: `curl -i -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/search/fullTextSearchBlock -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d "{\"query\":\"SELECT * FROM blocks LIMIT 1\",\"method\":2}"` → -1 / "SQL search requires administrator privileges" searchEmbedBlock accepts the same reader SQL (no guard): `curl -i -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/search/searchEmbedBlock -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d "{\"embedB

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-69083](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69083). ### Summary The `/api/search/fullTextSearchAssetContent` endpoint exposes two SQL flaws on the asset-content database, both reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`: 1. **method 2** passes a client-supplied SQL statement to the read-write asset-content DB with no single-statement or read-only guard, and without the admin restriction its sibling `fullTextSearchBlock` applies to the same SQL method. 2. **method 3** builds a `REGEXP` clause by concatenating the client expression with no quote-escaping, permitting SQL breakout while the equivalent block-search builder does escape. Both run on a read-write handle through a statement-stacking-capable driver, spanning the cross-notebook asset-content store. ### Details **Route / auth tier.** `router.go`: `Handle("POST", "/api/search/fullTextSearchAssetContent", model.CheckAuth, fullTextSearchAssetContent)`, `CheckAuth` only. Anonymous/reader reachable on the publish surface. `parseSearchAssetContentArgs` reads `method` and `query` straight from the JSON body with no constraint, so both are fully client-controlled. **Missing admin guard (contrast with the sibling).** `fullTextSearchBlock` rejects the SQL method for non-admins (`if method == 2 && !IsAdminRoleContext(c)`). `fullTextSearchAssetContent` has no such check on its handler, so the SQL method is reachable by a reader. **method 2 : raw SQL, no statement guard.** Dispatch: `FullTextSearchAssetContent` case 2 → `searchAssetContentBySQL(query, …)`. After `filterQueryInvisibleChars` + `TrimSpace`, the statement is passed to `sql.SelectAssetContentsRawStmt(stmt, …)` → `queryAssetContent` → `assetContentDB.Query(query)` directly, with no `CheckSingleStatement`/`CheckReadonlyStatement`. The `assetContentDB` DSN sets no `mode=ro`/`_query_only`, so the handle is read-write (same `88250/go-sqlite3` fork). **method 3 : unescaped REGEXP concatenation.** Dispatch → `assetContentFieldRegexp(exp)`, which writes `(name REGEXP '<exp>' OR content REGEXP '<exp>')` by concatenation with **no** `'` escaping. `exp` reaches it after only `filterQueryInvisibleChars` (strips invisible characters, not quotes). The parallel block-search builder `fieldRegexp` performs `ReplaceAll(regexp, "'", "''")` before wrapping, this asset builder omits that step. A single quote in `exp` breaks out of the literal into SQL context. The result runs via `SelectAssetContentsRawStmtNoParse` → `queryAssetContent` → direct `assetContentDB.Query`, again with no single/read-only guard. **Post-hoc filter.** `FilterAssetContentByPublishAccess` runs on the results after the query executes; it filters rows and does not constrain the statement (same timing as the accepted `searchDocs`/`searchEmbedBlock` findings). **Handle / stacking / scope.** Read-write asset-content DB, `88250/go-sqlite3` stacking-capable driver, `ATTACH` available. The asset-content store spans notebooks cross-boundary. ### Impact An unauthenticated request (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` can, via method 2, execute arbitrary SQL on the read-write asset-content database, and via method 3, inject SQL through the unescaped `REGEXP` clause. Both permit cross-notebook read disclosure of asset-content data and, via the read-write handle and statement stacking, modification of database content and `ATTACH`-reachable files. No admin role or write permission through the normal API is required. Code execution is not reachable in the default build (no `load_extension`). ### PoC Steps 1. Create a doc with a heading and secret body (6806, admin token) `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/notebook/createNotebook -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Authorization: Token g4wj3r04ntobe9m4" -d "{\"name\":\"F3\"}"` Take the returned notebook id as BOX, then: `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/filetree/createDocWithMd -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Authorization: Token g4wj3r04ntobe9m4" -d "{\"notebook\":\"BOX\",\"path\":\"/f3-secret\",\"markdown\":\"## SecretSection\n\nUNIQUE_MARKER_99 hidden body text\"}"` The returned string is the doc root id → DOC. 2. Get the heading block id (admin SQL on 68 `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/notebook/createNotebook -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Authorization: Token g4wj3r04ntobe9m4" -d "{\"name\":\"F3\"}"` Take the returned notebook id as BOX, then: `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/fintent-Type: application/json" -H"Authorization: Token g4wj3r04ntobe9m4" -d "{\"notebook\":\"BOX\",\"path\":\"/f3-secret\",\"markdown\":\"## SecretSection\n\nUNIQUE_MARKER_99 hidden body text\"}"` The returned string is the doc root id → DOC. 2. Get the heading block id (admin SQL on 6806) `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/query/sql -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Authorization: Token g4wj3r04ntob

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-68587](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68587). ### Summary Three "heading transaction" endpoints `/api/block/getHeadingDeleteTransaction`, `/api/block/getHeadingLevelTransaction`, and `/api/block/getHeadingInsertTransaction` return the rendered block DOM of a heading and its subtree in the computed transaction payload, with no publish-access check. They are gated by `CheckAuth` only, so they are reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token, and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. Despite their write-implying names, these endpoints perform no mutation on this path, they compute a transaction object and return it, and that object contains `RenderNodeBlockDOM` output. As a result, an anonymous reader who supplies a heading block ID can read the full rendered content of a document that has been explicitly marked publish-disabled by an administrator, content that the reader-facing `/api/filetree/getDoc` path correctly refuses to return. ### Details **Route / auth tier.** All three routes are registered `CheckAuth`-only (no `CheckAdminRole`). `CheckAuth` admits `RoleReader`, and the publish proxy forwards port-6808 traffic with a Reader JWT (anonymous account when publish auth is disabled). Anonymous/reader reachable. **No publish-access filter.** `GetHeadingDeleteTransaction` / `GetHeadingLevelTransaction` / `GetHeadingInsertTransaction` load the heading's block tree and render its DOM into the returned transaction's operation data. None of the three invokes `IsReadOnlyRoleContext` / the publish-access filter that the reader-safe content path (`getDoc`) applies. The reader-facing content endpoints (`getDoc`, and the `CheckAdminRole`-gated `getBlockDOM`/`getBlockKramdown`) treat rendered block DOM as gated content; these three transaction endpoints return the same rendered DOM without that gate. **Write-implying name, read behavior.** On this code path the endpoints only *compute* the transaction (e.g. the `undoOperations` a delete would produce) and return it; nothing is deleted or modified. The returned operation data includes the rendered HTML of the heading subtree. This mismatch, mutation-shaped name, content-returning behavior is why the gap is easy to miss. ### Proof of Concept Reproduced on a local instance (SiYuan running locally, publish mode enabled on port 6808, publish Basic Auth disabled). `DOC` is a document containing a heading `HEADING` whose body contains the unique marker `UNIQUE_MARKER_99`, and `DOC` is marked publish-disabled by the administrator. **1. Confirm the document is publish-disabled (admin action, the boundary that should block reads):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/filetree/setPublishAccess Authorization: Token <admin-token> {"id":"DOC","visible":false,"password":"","disable":true} ``` **2. Baseline: the reader-safe content path correctly blocks it (anonymous, port 6808):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/filetree/getDoc {"id":"DOC"} ``` Returns the blocked/placeholder response, the publish filter is applied, no content. **3. Disclosure: the transaction endpoint returns the content (anonymous, port 6808):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getHeadingDeleteTransaction {"id":"HEADING"} ``` Returns HTTP 200; `data.undoOperations[].data` contains the rendered HTML of the heading subtree, including the hidden body text `UNIQUE_MARKER_99`. Nothing is deleted — the endpoint only computes the transaction. This is the full content of a publish-disabled document returned to an anonymous reader. **4. Sibling endpoints: same disclosure, same input:** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getHeadingLevelTransaction {"id":"HEADING","level":2} POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getHeadingInsertTransaction {"id":"HEADING"} ``` Both return the rendered DOM of the heading subtree in their operation data. ### Impact An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` who supplies a heading block ID can read the full rendered content of a publish-disabled document, defeating a boundary the administrator explicitly configured. **Precondition:** the request requires the target heading's block ID. Block IDs are high-entropy and are not returned by this endpoint, so this endpoint alone does not permit untargeted enumeration of arbitrary documents. However, block/heading IDs for publish-disabled documents are obtainable from other `CheckAuth`-only endpoints that lack the publish-access filter (the publish-boundary handler set reported separately, e.g. `getHeadingChildrenIDs`). Chained with such an ID source, this yields end-to-end unauthenticated full-content disclosure of publish-disabled documents. Presented standalone, the attacker must already possess the heading ID. Impact is confidentiality-only: these endpoints return content but do not (on this path) modify data. No admin role, CSRF token, or write permission is required. Encrypted notebooks

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-68586](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68586). ### Summary The backlink API splits into list endpoints (which documents reference a block) and content endpoints (the rendered text of those referencing blocks). The list endpoints apply a publish-access filter, the content endpoints do not. As a result, `/api/ref/getBacklinkDoc` and `/api/ref/getBackmentionDoc` return the rendered DOM of blocks belonging to a publish-forbidden document to an anonymous reader, with no access check. Both content endpoints are gated by `CheckAuth` only, reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. ### Details The asymmetry between the list and content sides is the tell that this is an oversight, not intended behavior: | Endpoint | Returns | Publish-access filter | Route | |---|---|---|---| | `getBacklink` | list (`*Path`) | `FilterPathsByPublishAccess` - present | `CheckAuth` | | `getBacklink2` | list (`*Path`) | `FilterPathsByPublishAccess` - present | `CheckAuth` | | `getBacklinkDoc` | rendered DOM | none | `CheckAuth` | | `getBackmentionDoc` | rendered DOM | none | `CheckAuth` | `model/backlink.go` contains no publish-access reference anywhere, and `Backlink.DOM` is the rendered HTML of the referencing blocks. `getBacklinkDoc(defID, refTreeID)` returns the rendered content of blocks in `refTreeID` - including a publish-forbidden, publish-disabled, or password-protected document with no access check. The filtered list siblings (`getBacklink`/`getBacklink2`) demonstrate that the publish boundary is meant to apply to this data; the content endpoints simply omit it. A reader is not limited to the filtered backlink list, they call `getBacklinkDoc` directly with any `refTreeID`. This also yields a reference-existence oracle: the response reveals whether the forbidden document `refTreeID` references the block `defID`. ### Proof of Concept Reproduced on a local instance (SiYuan running locally, publish mode enabled on port 6808, publish Basic Auth disabled). Setup: a publish-forbidden document `D` (`REFTREEID`) whose body contains the unique marker `SECRET_MARKER_77` and which references a block `DEFID` in a separate known document. **1. Mark the target document publish-forbidden (admin action, the boundary that should block reads):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/filetree/setPublishAccess Authorization: Token <admin-token> {"id":"REFTREEID","visible":false,"password":"","disable":true} ``` **2. Baseline: the list endpoint correctly hides the forbidden doc from the reader (anonymous, port 6808):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/ref/getBacklink2 {"id":"DEFID","k":"","mk":""} ``` The returned backlinks do not include the forbidden document `D`, the list side is filtered. **3. Disclosure: the content endpoint returns the forbidden doc's blocks anyway (anonymous, port 6808):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/ref/getBacklinkDoc {"defID":"DEFID","refTreeID":"REFTREEID","keyword":""} ``` Returns HTTP 200; `data.backlinks[].dom` contains `SECRET_MARKER_77`, the rendered content of the publish-forbidden document, returned to an anonymous reader. `getBackmentionDoc` behaves identically for mention-type references. ### Impact An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader`, can read the rendered content of a publish-forbidden document's referencing blocks, defeating a boundary the administrator explicitly configured, and can determine whether a forbidden document references a given block (a reference-existence oracle). **Precondition (stated honestly):** the request requires `refTreeID` (the forbidden document's ID) and `defID` (a block it references). `defID` may be any published/known block, so if the forbidden document references any public content, `defID` is known and only `refTreeID` need be supplied. Block/document IDs for forbidden documents are also obtainable from other `CheckAuth`-only endpoints that lack the publish-access filter (reported separately). This endpoint alone does not enumerate arbitrary documents; it discloses content once an ID is known. Impact is confidentiality-only: content disclosure plus a reference-existence oracle, no modification. No admin role, CSRF token, or write permission is required. Encrypted notebooks are out of scope. ### Suggested fix Apply the same publish-access check the list siblings use. In `getBacklinkDoc`/`getBackmentionDoc`, filter each `Backlink` by its source document's box/path via `CheckPathAccessableByPublishIgnore` plus the publish-password cookie check consistent with `FilterPathsByPublishAccess` in `getBacklink`/`getBacklink2`. Any endpoint returning rendered block DOM should enforce the same publish boundary as the corresponding list endpoint.

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-68585](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68585). ### Summary The `/api/block/getBlockInfo` endpoint returns document root metadata including the document title (`rootTitle`) for a block in a publish-forbidden document, with no publish-access check. Its sibling `/api/block/getDocInfo` applies the publish-access filter, `getBlockInfo` does not. Both are gated by `CheckAuth` only, so `getBlockInfo` is reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. ### Details The list/info side of this API is filtered while the block-info twin is not the asymmetry indicates an oversight rather than intended behavior: | Endpoint | Returns | Publish-access filter | Route | |---|---|---|---| | `getDocInfo` | document info/metadata | present | `CheckAuth` | | `getBlockInfo` | `box, path, rootID, rootTitle, rootChildID, rootIcon` | none | `CheckAuth` | `getBlockInfo` takes a caller-supplied block ID, validates only its format, and returns the containing document's root metadata including `rootTitle` (the document title) with no `IsReadOnlyRoleContext` / publish-access check. Because `getDocInfo` performs the filtering for equivalent data, the boundary is clearly meant to apply here; `getBlockInfo` omits it. ### Proof of Concept Reproduced on a local instance (SiYuan running locally, publish mode enabled on port 6808, publish Basic Auth disabled). Setup: a publish-forbidden document `D` whose title is a unique marker, containing a block `BLOCKID`. **1. Mark the document publish-forbidden (admin action):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/filetree/setPublishAccess Authorization: Token <admin-token> {"id":"DOC","visible":false,"password":"","disable":true} ``` **2. Disclosure: the block-info endpoint returns the forbidden doc's title (anonymous, port 6808):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getBlockInfo {"id":"BLOCKID"} ``` Returns HTTP 200 with `data.rootTitle` set to the publish-forbidden document's title, along with `box`, `path`, `rootID`, and `rootIcon`. This document's title is not returned by the reader-facing filtered paths. ### Impact An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` can read the title and root metadata (notebook, path, root ID, icon) of a publish-forbidden document by supplying a block ID from it. This discloses the existence, title, and location of documents an administrator marked as excluded from publishing. **Precondition and scope (stated honestly):** the request requires a block ID from the target document; this endpoint does not enumerate arbitrary documents. The disclosure is limited to document metadata, title, notebook, path, root ID, icon — not the document body. Block IDs for forbidden documents are obtainable from other `CheckAuth`-only endpoints that lack the publish-access filter (reported separately). Impact is confidentiality-only, limited to metadata; no content body, no modification. Encrypted notebooks are out of scope. ### Suggested fix Apply the same publish-access check `getDocInfo` uses to `getBlockInfo` before returning root metadata, resolve the block's document and enforce `IsReadOnlyRoleContext` / the publish-access filter, consistent with the sibling endpoint.

Vikunja versions 0.22.0 through 2.3.0 contain a vulnerability in API token management where the system fails to validate the principal type. This allows a link-share JWT with a numeric ID matching a user's ID to be treated as that user, enabling an authenticated attacker to manage the target user's API tokens. The issue is fixed in version 2.4.0.

Vikunja versions 0.24.0 through 2.3.0 have a broken object level authorization (BOLA) vulnerability in the task-collection API endpoint. This flaw allows holders of any project share link to read kanban bucket titles and user information (username, name, id) from other tenants across the instance. The vulnerability does not disclose task contents outside the share's own project. It also enables an existence oracle for project/view IDs. The issue is fixed in version 2.4.0.

## 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

Executive Summary Vikunja accepts both regular-user JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) and link-share JWTs through its generic authenticated API route group. A link-share JWT resolves to a `models.LinkSharing` principal whose `GetID()` method returns the numeric `link_shares.id`. The API-token management model then treats that generic numeric value as a `users.id` when it creates, lists, and deletes API tokens. Because `users.id` and `link_shares.id` are independent positive sequences, a link share whose ID equals another user's ID is treated as that user by `/api/v1/tokens`. An ordinary authenticated attacker can obtain a target's numeric user ID through authenticated user search and create link shares on an attacker-writable project until the link-share sequence reaches that value. The colliding link-share principal can then list the target's API-token metadata, issue a new API token owned by the target, and delete target-owned API tokens. The newly issued token operates with attacker-selected valid API scopes under the target user's existing permissions. I reviewed the vulnerable `v2.3.0` source, the introducing commit, the stable tag history, and the inspected main revision directly. I also reviewed the recorded local HTTP and native-router validation results. Dynamic testing used only a local `v2.3.0` Docker deployment with PostgreSQL and synthetic data; I did not test any public, hosted, or otherwise external instance. Historical tags were checked from source rather than exercised dynamically. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Product | Vikunja API | | Status | Validated; disclosure-ready | | Confirmed affected stable versions | `v0.22.0` through `v2.3.0`, inclusive | | Nearest confirmed unaffected stable version | `v0.21.0` | | Introducing commit | `e6b25bd57b537ef9a72b5acdadf446ca5ef77bfa` | | Latest inspected affected main revision | `95b7e673fb5ee407498fa4b13e8b4c57847a4a0b` | | Fixed version | Unknown; no verified fix commit or release was identified | | Severity | High, CVSS v3.1 score 8.1 | | Vector | `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N` | | Weakness | Primary: CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization); secondary: CWE-639 | The stable range is source-based. The issue first became reachable when commit `e6b25bd57b...` added the authenticated API-token CRUD routes while retaining the generic `web.Auth.GetID()` ownership model. `v0.21.0` does not contain the API-token model or these routes. All containing stable tags from `v0.22.0` through `v2.3.0` retain the vulnerable source-to-sink tuple. Downstream forks and vendor-specific builds were not assessed. ## Background ### Two authenticated principal types share one numeric interface Vikunja's authenticated route group is protected by a common token middleware. That middleware can establish a regular user, an API-token owner, or a link share as the request's `web.Auth` principal. The `/api/v1/tokens` handlers are registered on this generic group in `pkg/routes/routes.go`: ```go a.Use(SetupTokenMiddleware()) // API Tokens apiTokenProvider := &handler.WebHandler{ EmptyStruct: func() handler.CObject { return &models.APIToken{} }, } a.GET("/tokens", apiTokenProvider.ReadAllWeb) a.PUT("/tokens", apiTokenProvider.CreateWeb) a.DELETE("/tokens/:token", apiTokenProvider.DeleteWeb) ``` The security-sensitive detail is that authentication answers *which object is the principal*, while `web.Auth.GetID()` exposes only an untyped integer. A regular user's ID belongs to the `users` namespace. A link-share ID belongs to the separately allocated `link_shares` namespace. Equality between those integers does not imply that the principals represent the same actor. ### Link-share authentication preserves the share-row ID `pkg/modules/auth/auth.go` creates a link-share JWT with the share's numeric ID and later resolves that token to a `models.LinkSharing` object: ```go claims["type"] = AuthTypeLinkShare claims["id"] = share.ID claims["hash"] = share.Hash claims["project_id"] = share.ProjectID // ... if typ == AuthTypeLinkShare && config.ServiceEnableLinkSharing.GetBool() { s := db.NewSession() defer s.Close() return models.GetLinkShareFromClaims(s, claims) } ``` The `LinkSharing` model declares its own positive auto-incrementing key and returns it unchanged through the generic interface in `pkg/models/link_sharing.go`: ```go type LinkSharing struct { ID int64 `xorm:"bigint autoincr not null unique pk" json:"id" param:"share"` // ... } func (share *LinkSharing) GetID() int64 { return share.ID } ``` Link shares are expected to act within the shared project's permission boundary. API-token management is instead a user-account credential boundary: tokens are owned by users and can authorize future requests as those users. The normal invariant should therefore be that only a positively identified regular-user principal may enter API-token management, and its user ID must be used as the owner key. ### Attacker capabilities The validated attacker is an ord

## Summary There is a high severity vulnerability in Traefik's Kubernetes Ingress NGINX provider. When an Ingress uses the `nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/rewrite-target` annotation with a regular expression that captures attacker-controlled text without requiring a path separator (for example path `/api(.*)` with rewrite target `/$1`), the generated `RewriteTarget` middleware can turn an initially safe request path into a dot-segment traversal path after the router has already been selected. ## Patches - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.8 ## For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please [open an issue](https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues). <details> <summary>Original Description</summary> ## Summary Traefik's Kubernetes Ingress NGINX provider creates an internal `RewriteTarget` middleware for the `nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/rewrite-target` annotation. When an Ingress path captures attacker-controlled text without requiring a path separator, the middleware can turn an initially safe path into a dot-segment traversal path after Traefik has already selected the router. For example, with Ingress path `/api(.*)` and rewrite target `/$1`, an unauthenticated request to `/api../admin` follows this flow: 1. The default entry-point path sanitizer leaves `/api../admin` unchanged because `api..` is one ordinary segment. 2. The public router's `PathRegexp("(?i)^/api(.*)")` rule matches. 3. `RewriteTarget` captures `../admin` and creates `/../admin`. 4. The middleware forwards `/../admin` without checking whether path normalization changes it. 5. A backend that normalizes paths resolves `/../admin` to `/admin`. 6. The request reaches content intended to be reachable only through a separate `/admin` router with BasicAuth, DigestAuth, or ForwardAuth. This is an unpatched sibling of [GHSA-cxjq-mrr5-89rv](https://github.com/traefik/traefik/security/advisories/GHSA-cxjq-mrr5-89rv), which added post-replacement normalization validation to `ReplacePathRegex`. The separate ingress-nginx `RewriteTarget` implementation did not receive the same validation. The bypass remains exploitable in the patched Traefik v3.7.7 release. ## Severity **Proposed severity:** Critical **CVSS 3.1:** 9.1 — `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N` - Attack vector: Network - Attack complexity: Low once the affected routing pattern exists - Privileges required: None - User interaction: None - Scope: Unchanged - Confidentiality: High - Integrity: High - Availability: None **Primary weakness:** CWE-22 — Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) **Secondary weakness:** CWE-288 — Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel The practical impact depends on the protected backend paths. If they are read-only or low sensitivity, environmental severity may be lower. ### Exploitation Preconditions - The Kubernetes Ingress NGINX provider is enabled. - A public Ingress uses `rewrite-target` with a regex that can capture `..` adjacent to the matched prefix, such as `/api(.*)` with `/$1`. - A protected router exposes another path on the same backend, such as `/admin`, and relies on a Traefik authentication or authorization middleware. - The backend normalizes dot segments before dispatching the request. These are deployment prerequisites; the remote attacker needs no credentials or special timing. ## Affected Components ### Confirmed versions - Traefik v3.7.0 through v3.7.7 - Current `master` at commit `b93f02cd07b79490fb8c8f02e301a7a1ec553195` - Current `v3.7` branch at `69259c3acc9d4bdc065cb2e3b83336f7de3e7038` The vulnerable middleware is present in every stable v3.7 release checked. The v2.11 and v3.6 branches do not contain this ingress-nginx `RewriteTarget` implementation. ### Code locations - `pkg/provider/kubernetes/ingress-nginx/middleware.go:257-274` - Converts the Ingress path and `rewrite-target` annotation directly into `dynamic.RewriteTarget` configuration. - `pkg/middlewares/ingressnginx/rewritetarget/rewrite_target.go:85-157` - Performs capture-based path rewriting and forwards the rewritten path without normalization validation. - `pkg/server/middleware/middlewares.go:346-353` - Instantiates the vulnerable middleware in the live HTTP chain. ## Root Cause The provider passes the route regex and annotation replacement into the middleware: ```go loc.RewriteTarget = &dynamic.RewriteTarget{ Regex: loc.Path, Replacement: rewrite, } ``` `RewriteTarget.ServeHTTP` then derives a path from attacker-controlled capture groups: ```go newTarget = rt.regexp.ReplaceAllString(currentPath, rt.replacement) req.URL.RawPath = newTarget req.URL.Path, err = url.PathUnescape(req.URL.RawPath) req.RequestURI = req.URL.RequestURI() rt.next.ServeHTTP(rw, req) ``` There is no invariant check between `PathUnescape` and forwarding to ensure that `req.URL.Path` equals its normalized form. Because routing happen

pion/stun is a Go implementation of STUN. Prior to 3.1.3, XORMappedAddress.GetFromAs can panic while parsing a malformed short XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in STUN or ICE Binding-response parsing paths, allowing remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 3.1.3.

### Summary The free5GC AUSF (Authentication Server Function) does not validate the `supiOrSuci` field in UE authentication requests. Null bytes (`\x00`) and other control characters pass through JSON parsing unchanged and are forwarded to the UDM in an unescaped URL path. This causes Go's `net/url.Parse()` to fail, returning HTTP 500 "System failure" and leaking internal stack traces. An unauthenticated attacker can trigger this at scale—4.1% of `special_chars` mutations produce HTTP 500—causing denial of service for all subscribers attempting authentication through the affected AUSF. CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation). --- ### Details The vulnerability lies in the AUSF's `POST /nausf-auth/v1/ue-authentications` handler. The JSON body includes a `supiOrSuci` field: ```json {"supiOrSuci": "imsi-208930000000031", "servingNetworkName": "...", "authType": "5G_AKA"} ``` The AUSF parses this JSON (Go's `encoding/json` accepts null bytes in strings per RFC 8259), then constructs a UDM URL by directly embedding the raw `supiOrSuci` value: ``` GET /nudm-ueau/v1/{supiOrSuci}/security-information/... ``` When `supiOrSuci` contains null bytes (`\x00`), the resulting URL is illegal under RFC 3986. Go's `net/url.Parse()` fails, and the error propagates as an unhandled internal error, returning HTTP 500 with a stack trace in the response body: ``` {"error":{"status":"INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR","message":"System failure"}} ``` The AUSF container log shows: `net/url: invalid control character in URL`. **Attack chain:** ``` 1. Attacker → AUSF: POST {"supiOrSuci": "imsi-\x00...", ...} 2. AUSF: JSON parsed OK (null bytes valid in JSON strings) 3. AUSF → UDM: GET /nudm-ueau/v1/imsi-\x00.../security-information/... 4. UDM: net/url.Parse() fails (\x00 illegal per RFC 3986) 5. AUSF ← UDM: error 6. Attacker ← AUSF: HTTP 500 {"message": "System failure"} ``` **Contrast with C/C++ 5GCs:** The same null-byte injection in string fields causes SIGSEGV/SIGABRT in OAI (C++) and Open5GS (C), but "only" HTTP 500 in free5GC (Go). Go's memory safety converts the crash into a recoverable error—the service survives, but the denial is equally effective. **Discovery context:** Found via automated 5G SBI fuzzing. The `special_chars` mutation strategy injected 10 consecutive null bytes into string-valued JSON fields. Across 24h of fuzzing: | Strategy | Requests | HTTP 500s | Trigger Rate | |----------|----------|-----------|-------------| | `special_chars` | 98,304 | 4,021 | 4.1% | | `seed_replay` | 132,428 | 7,947 | 6.0% | | `grammar_aware` | 30,944 | 683 | 2.2% | 100% of HTTP 500s originated from the `POST /nausf-auth/v1/ue-authentications` endpoint. ### PoC **No configuration changes needed.** Default free5GC deployment is vulnerable. ```python #!/usr/bin/env python3 import http.client, json AUSF_HOST = "127.0.0.1" # Replace with AUSF IP (e.g. 172.24.0.50) AUSF_PORT = 8000 # Bug: null bytes in supiOrSuci → HTTP 500 body_bug = json.dumps({ "supiOrSuci": "imsi-\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00", "servingNetworkName": "5G:mnc093.mcc208.3gppnetwork.org", "authType": "5G_AKA" }) conn = http.client.HTTPConnection(AUSF_HOST, AUSF_PORT, timeout=5) conn.request("POST", "/nausf-auth/v1/ue-authentications", body=body_bug, headers={"Content-Type": "application/json"}) resp = conn.getresponse() print(f"Bug: Status {resp.status}") # Returns 500 # Contrast: normal SUCI → 404 (expected, UE not found) body_normal = json.dumps({ "supiOrSuci": "imsi-208930000000031", "servingNetworkName": "5G:mnc093.mcc208.3gppnetwork.org", "authType": "5G_AKA" }) conn2 = http.client.HTTPConnection(AUSF_HOST, AUSF_PORT, timeout=5) conn2.request("POST", "/nausf-auth/v1/ue-authentications", body=body_normal, headers={"Content-Type": "application/json"}) resp2 = conn2.getresponse() print(f"Normal: Status {resp2.status}") # Returns 404 ``` **Run:** `python3 reproduce.py` **Expected fix (input validation + URL escaping):** ```go import "regexp" import "net/url" var suciRegex = regexp.MustCompile(`^[a-zA-Z0-9\-]+$`) func validateSUCI(supiOrSuci string) error { if strings.ContainsFunc(supiOrSuci, func(r rune) bool { return r < 0x20 || r > 0x7e }) { return fmt.Errorf("SUCI contains illegal characters") } return nil } // URL-escape before constructing UDM request udmURL := fmt.Sprintf("http://%s/nudm-ueau/v1/%s/security-information/...", udmAddr, url.PathEscape(supiOrSuci)) ``` ### Impact | Property | Value | |----------|-------| | **Authentication** | None required (unauthenticated SBI endpoint) | | **Impact** | Denial of Service — AUSF returns HTTP 500 for all authentication requests during attack | | **Information Leak** | HTTP 500 response leaks internal `net/url.Parse` error, enabling backend fingerprinting | | **Affected version** | free5GC v4.2.2 (latest) | | **Fix** | Validate `supiOrSuci` before URL construction; use `url.PathEscape()` | **Environment:

vault-secrets-webhook is a Kubernetes mutating webhook that makes direct secret injection into Pods possible. Prior to 1.23.1, parseVaultConfig() in pkg/webhook/config.go accepts the vault.security.banzaicloud.io/vault-addr annotation, MutateConfigMap and MutateSecret call newVaultClient in pkg/webhook/webhook.go, and vault.security.banzaicloud.io/vault-serviceaccount can cause a ServiceAccount JWT to be sent to an attacker-controlled Vault address. This issue is fixed in version 1.23.1.

Wings is the server control plane for Pterodactyl, a free, open-source game server management panel. Prior to 1.13.0, a malformed packet received during the SFTP connection handshake causes a Go panic. This issue is fixed in version 1.13.0.

Wings is the server control plane for Pterodactyl, a free, open-source game server management panel. Prior to 1.12.3, {{config.}} placeholders in egg configuration-file templates allow a low-privileged user to read {{config.token}}, {{config.token_id}}, and {{config.docker.registries}} from the full daemon configuration. This issue is fixed in version 1.12.3.

Wings is the server control plane for Pterodactyl, a free, open-source game server management panel. Prior to 1.13.0, unbounded json, yaml, and xml configuration-file parsers in parser.go can process an oversized non-file parser configuration file and exhaust Wings process memory. This issue is fixed in version 1.13.0.