Vikunja: Link-share principal-type confusion enables cross-account team removal, bot takeover, and roster disclosure
CVE-2026-76216 · GHSA-32r8-5843-4qw2 · GO-2026-6711 · published 9 Oct 2026
How serious is it
- Severity: high, CVSS score 7.5 out of 10.
- No exploit prediction (EPSS) score yet.
- Not on the CISA list of exploited vulnerabilities.
- No public exploit in Exploit-DB.
Is your app affected by CVE-2026-76216?
Paste this prompt into Claude Code, Cursor or any AI coding tool: it runs a free Shippable scan of your project and fixes what it finds. Built with Lovable, Bolt or v0? Scan your live app. Or upload your package file.
Who is affected
code.vikunja.io/api(Go) <= 2.4.0
How to check
- Run
go list -m code.vikunja.io/apiin your project to see the installed version, including copies pulled in by other packages. - Or paste your lockfile into the checker: it lists every package with a known vulnerability, this one included.
How to fix
Copies a prompt for Claude Code, Cursor or Codex: it checks your lockfiles for this and upgrades it.
- No fixed version of
code.vikunja.io/apiyet. Replace or remove it, or apply the workaround in the advisory below. - If a vulnerable version was live, check your logs and rotate the secrets that server could read.
The advisory
## Summary
Vikunja's `web.Auth` interface (`pkg/web/web.go`, single method `GetID() int64`) is satisfied by BOTH `*user.User` and `*models.LinkSharing`. A link-share's `GetID()` returns the **raw positive** `share.ID` (`pkg/models/link_sharing.go:83-85`), which lives in the same positive autoincrement ID space as `users.id`. The safe negated form `getUserID() = share.ID * -1` (`link_sharing.go:126-128`) exists but is NOT used at three permission sinks. As a result, a link-share principal with id `N` — which should have zero authority over teams or bot users — is treated as the *user* whose `users.id == N` at three permission checks that lack the `a.(*LinkSharing)` guard their sibling methods have. This is the same principal-type-confusion class as CVE-2026-68581 (GHSA-vvcv-vpph-h844), but at three code paths that advisory/fix never touched.
## Root Cause
`web.Auth` is a one-method interface (`GetID() int64`). `*LinkSharing.GetID()` returns the raw positive share id. Three permission methods compare this raw id directly and omit the link-share type guard used elsewhere in the same files:
1. **`TeamMember.CanDelete`** (`pkg/models/team_members_permissions.go:31-40`): the self-removal fast path `if u.ID == a.GetID() { return true }` (:36) executes **before** `IsAdmin`. `IsAdmin` (:48-51) is the ONLY place that rejects link shares (`if _, is := a.(*LinkSharing); is { return false }`, :50) — and it is never reached when the fast path returns true.
2. **`BotUser.isOwner`** (`pkg/models/bot_users_permissions.go:47-56`): `return u.BotOwnerID == a.GetID()` (:55), used by `CanRead`/`CanUpdate`/`CanDelete` (:36-45). Unlike `CanCreate` (:27-30) which type-asserts `a.(*user.User)`, these three paths have no principal guard.
3. **`Team.CanRead`** (`pkg/models/teams_permissions.go:68-78`): matches membership on `And("user_id = ?", a.GetID())` (:76) with no link-share guard, unlike sibling `IsAdmin` (:45-49, guard at :47).
Link-share JWTs reach these routes: `SetupTokenMiddleware` validates the signature only, `GetAuthFromClaims` returns `*models.LinkSharing`, and the `/user`/`/teams` route groups add no link-share rejection. Link sharing is enabled by default (`config.go` `ServiceEnableLinkSharing.setDefault(true)`).
## Impact
A link-share principal (obtainable from any public share link, or self-registered via a share on the attacker's own project) whose id `N` collides with a victim's `users.id == N` can, without being that user or any user:
- **Integrity (I:H):** remove the victim from any team they belong to (`DELETE /api/v1/teams/{T}/members/{username}`) → revokes all project permissions the victim inherited through that team.
- **Availability/Integrity (A:H, I:H):** enumerate the victim's bot users (`GET /api/v1/user/bots` → `bot_owner_id = a.GetID()`), then disable/rename or **permanently delete** them (`DELETE /api/v1/user/bots/{id}` → `DeleteUser`), destroying data owned solely by those bots.
- **Confidentiality (C:H):** read the roster + metadata (name, description, full member list) of any team the colliding user belongs to (`GET /api/v1/teams/{T}`), plus read bot-user records via `isOwner`-gated reads.
## Attack Chain
### Sink 1 — TeamMember.CanDelete (integrity)
1. **Entry:** `POST /api/v1/shares/{hash}/auth` → link-share JWT with `id = N`. **Guard:** JWT middleware — signature only. **Bypass proof:** `GetAuthFromClaims` returns `*models.LinkSharing`; no route-group link-share rejection on the `/teams` group.
2. **Action:** `DELETE /api/v1/teams/{T}/members/{usernameOfUserN}` with the link-share bearer, targeting a team `T` (≥2 members) that user `N` belongs to. **Guard:** `CanDelete` → `GetUserByUsername(tm.Username)` returns user N, then `u.ID == a.GetID()` (`team_members_permissions.go:36`). **Bypass proof:** `a.GetID()` returns `N` (raw positive `share.ID`, `link_sharing.go:84`) == user N's id → `true`. No `a.(*LinkSharing)` check on this branch (only `IsAdmin` at :50 has it, never reached).
3. **Sink:** `Delete` (`team_members.go`) removes user N from team T (last-member check passes when team has ≥2 members). **Impact:** victim loses all project access inherited through team T.
### Sink 2 — BotUser.isOwner (bot takeover / destruction)
1. **Entry:** link-share JWT id N (as above). **Guard:** signature-only; `/user` group adds no link-share reject.
2. **Enumerate:** `GET /api/v1/user/bots` → `ReadAll` runs `Where("bot_owner_id = ?", a.GetID())` = bots owned by user N. **Bypass proof:** `a.GetID()` = N; returns victim's bot ids self-contained (removes the id-guessing barrier).
3. **Sink:** `DELETE /api/v1/user/bots/{botId}` → `CanDelete` → `isOwner` → `u.BotOwnerID == a.GetID()` (`bot_users_permissions.go:55`) → true; `Delete` calls `DeleteUser`. **Bypass proof:** no `a.(*LinkSharing)` guard here (Create-only, :28). **Impact:** disable/rename/permanently delete victim's bot automation identities.
### Sink 3 — Team.CanRead (info disclosure)
1. **Entry:** link-share JWT id N. **Guard:** signature-only; no reject on `GET /teams/:team`.
2. **Sink:** `GET /api/v1/teams/{T}` → `CanRead` runs `Where("team_id=?", t.ID).And("user_id=?", a.GetID()).Get(tm)` (`teams_permissions.go:74-77`). **Bypass proof:** `a.GetID()` = N matches user N's `team_members` row → `can = true`; no `a.(*LinkSharing)` check (contrast `IsAdmin` at :47). **Impact:** read roster + metadata of a team the link share is not part of.
## Bypass Evidence
- `link_sharing.go:83-85` `GetID()` returns raw positive `share.ID` (NOT the negated `getUserID()` at :126-128).
- `team_members_permissions.go:36` raw `u.ID == a.GetID()` before `IsAdmin`; the LinkSharing guard sits at :50 on a branch never reached when the fast path returns true.
- `bot_users_permissions.go:55` raw `u.BotOwnerID == a.GetID()`; the `a.(*user.User)` guard at :28 is Create-only and NOT replicated on `isOwner`.
- `teams_permissions.go:76` raw `a.GetID()` in `CanRead`; sibling `IsAdmin` has the guard at :47, `CanRead` omits it.
- All three sinks verified p…
Check your whole app
Dependencies are only half of it. Free and read-only: before you push, run npx shippable-dev scan localhost:3000 in your project folder, no account needed. For your live app, you prove it's yours with a one-line tag first.
References
- github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/security/advisories/GHSA-32r8-5843-4qw2
- nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-76216
- www.vulncheck.com/advisories/vikunja-through-principal-type-confusion-via-linksharing
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-32r8-5843-4qw2
Merged from GitHub Advisory Database, OSV. Last updated 23 Oct 2026. All vulnerabilities · RSS · JSON