Vulnerability Database

413,619

Total vulnerabilities in the database

SiYuan: /history/*path and /repo/diff/*path potentially exposing historical snapshots of data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json and data/templates/* — github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

Summary

GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34 added a centralized guard, util.IsForbiddenAbsPath(), specifically to block access to a small set of sensitive files: conf/conf.json (plaintext accessAuthCode/API token/cookie key), data/snippets/conf.json, the entire data/templates/ directory, and data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json (plaintext publish-mode passwords). It was applied to kernel/api/file.go and kernel/mcp/tools/file.go. Two other routes in the same server that serve arbitrary files by path, /history/*path and /repo/diff/*path, construct their target paths independently and were not updated to call this new guard. Since the repo/history snapshot system's tracked root is data/ (confirmed by getSyncIgnoreLines(), whose ignore file lives at data/.siyuan/syncignore with entries relative to data/), both data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json and data/templates/* fall within the scope that can legitimately be captured in historical snapshots, meaning a prior version of either file can exist in util.HistoryDir/the repo-diff temp checkout even after the live file has been protected by the new guard. This is CWE-862 (Missing Authorization) applied to a very recently introduced protection mechanism.

Details

kernel/server/serve.go, /history/*path (around line 994):

ginServer.GET("/history/*path", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, func(context *gin.Context) { p := filepath.Join(util.HistoryDir, context.Param("path")) // 加密笔记本的历史是密文（.sy/assets/AV），需先解密再输出 if serveEncryptedHistory(context, p) { return } secureAssetContentHeaders(context, p, p) http.ServeFile(context.Writer, context.Request, p) })

No call to util.IsForbiddenAbsPath(p) anywhere in this handler.

kernel/server/serve.go, /repo/diff/*path (around line 1241):

ginServer.GET("/repo/diff/*path", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, func(context *gin.Context) { requestPath := filepath.Clean(context.Param("path")) if strings.Contains(requestPath, "..") { context.Status(http.StatusUnauthorized) return } ... p := filepath.Join(repoDiffBaseDir, requestPath) if !gulu.File.IsSubPath(repoDiffBaseDir, p) { context.Status(http.StatusUnauthorized) return } http.ServeFile(context.Writer, context.Request, p) })

This route does have its own traversal protection (.. rejection and IsSubPath containment within repoDiffBaseDir), but that only prevents escaping the diff-checkout directory, it does nothing to prevent retrieving a legitimately checked-out historical copy of publishAccess.json or a templates file from within that directory, which is exactly what the new guard exists to prevent regardless of which directory the copy currently sits in.

util.IsForbiddenAbsPath() itself (kernel/util/path_guard.go, introduced by the referenced fix) confirms the intended scope:

// 禁止访问 data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json（含发布模式明文访问密码） publishAccessPath := NormalizeAndResolve(filepath.Join(DataDir, ".siyuan", "publishAccess.json")) if fileNorm == publishAccessPath { return true }

and

// 禁止访问 data/templates 目录（含目录本身及其全部子路径） templatesBase := NormalizeAndResolve(filepath.Join(DataDir, "templates")) if fileNorm == templatesBase || gulu.File.IsSubPath(templatesBase, fileNorm) { return true }

Both are paths within data/, the same root the sync/history/repo system tracks.

Step-by-step reproduction

  1. As the workspace admin, enable Publish with a password on at least one notebook (creating data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json with a plaintext password), then let a sync/backup snapshot capture this state (or check whether local history capture already covers data/.siyuan/ in the deployed version).
  2. Change or remove the publish password, so the live publishAccess.json no longer contains the old plaintext password the new guard is meant to hide, going forward.
  3. As the admin, request the historical/diff version instead of the live file: curl -s http://<target>:6806/history/<snapshot-path-to-publishAccess.json> \ -u "<workspaceName>:<accessAuthCode>" curl -s http://<target>:6806/repo/diff/<diff-path-to-publishAccess.json> \ -u "<workspaceName>:<accessAuthCode>"
  4. Expected if consistently protected, matching the behavior the new guard already provides on the live-file endpoints: rejected. Observed: neither handler calls IsForbiddenAbsPath, so the historical copy is served if it exists in that location.

(Not run against a live compiled kernel, same sandbox limitation noted throughout this review; both handlers are read directly from source at the reviewed commit, and IsForbiddenAbsPath's scope, plus the sync-root confirmation via getSyncIgnoreLines(), are quoted directly above. Whether these specific files are captured by history/repo snapshots in a given deployment depends on the workspace's actual usage history and was not independently verified against a live instance in this review.)

Impact

An admin-authenticated request to either route can potentially retrieve a historical copy of data/.siyuan/publishAccess.json (disclosing a plaintext publish-mode password even after it has been changed or the live file has been protected) or a data/templates/* file, directly undermining the protection GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34 was written four days prior to this review specifically to provide, via two routes that predate that fix and were not updated alongside it.

## Affected products | Field | Value | |---|---| | Ecosystem | **Go** | | Package name | `github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel` | | Affected versions | Present as of commit `251596f` (2026-08-12, the version this review confirmed), i.e. postdates and was not covered by the `GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34` fix (commit `3542530`, 2026-08-08) | | Patched versions | *(none yet, leave blank until a fix is released)* | ## Severity | Field | Value | |---|---| | Vector string | `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:M/I:N/A:N` | | Score | **~5.9 (Medium)**, `PR:H` since admin authentication is required at the HTTP layer, confidentiality impact scoped to whatever sensitive historical content happens to exist in the tracked snapshots for a given deployment (a real but deployment-dependent condition, honestly reflected as Medium rather than assumed to always be present), no integrity/availability impact since both are read-only. | ## Weaknesses (CWE) - **CWE-862**: Missing Authorization (primary) - **CWE-200**: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor ## Notes for filing - Direct, narrow follow-up to `GHSA-c8r8-95hg-mp34`; recommend referencing that advisory directly when filing, since this is precisely the "sibling caller missed" pattern that fix's own centralization (moving the check into a shared `util` function) was presumably intended to prevent, just for two callers that existed before the shared function did and weren't migrated to it. - Suggested fix: add `if util.IsForbiddenAbsPath(p) { ... reject ... }` to both handlers, matching the pattern already applied in `kernel/api/file.go` and `kernel/mcp/tools/file.go`.
  • Published: Oct 5, 2026
  • Updated: Oct 6, 2026
  • GHSA: GHSA-3cm4-ccvw-6xr6
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 4.9
  • AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

CWEs:

Software Affected versions
Go icon github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel < 0.0.0-20260816034002-035bf9a8c311

Is kernel exposed on your perimeter?

A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.

What is attack surface management? →

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.