Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-27819 is a high-severity Path Traversal (CWE-22) vulnerability in Vikunja Vikunja. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 49% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-27819 affects Vikunja, an open-source self-hosted task management platform, in versions prior to 2.0.0. The vulnerability resides in the restoreConfig function within vikunja/pkg/modules/dump/restore.go of the go-vikunja/vikunja repository. It stems from inadequate sanitization of file paths in uploaded ZIP archives used for restoration, enabling path traversal (CWE-22) that allows extraction outside the intended directory. Additionally, malformed archives trigger a runtime panic (CWE-248) after wiping the database, as the code trusts the ZIP's Name attribute directly in os.OpenFile calls without validation and fails to check slice lengths, such as accessing an index of len(ms)-2 on insufficient data at line 154. The issue carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.2 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Exploitation requires network access and high privileges (PR:H), typically an authenticated administrator capable of uploading a restoration ZIP archive. Attackers can craft a malicious ZIP to overwrite arbitrary files on the host system, potentially leading to full compromise through confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts. Alternatively, a minimalist malformed ZIP causes the application to panic immediately after permanently deleting database contents, resulting in data loss and denial of service.
The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-42wg-38gx-85rh) and Vikunja changelog for version 2.0.0 detail the fix, which addresses path sanitization and panic conditions in the restoration logic. Security practitioners should upgrade to Vikunja 2.0.0 or later to mitigate the risks.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8753
Vulnerability Data
Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to version 2.0.0, the restoreConfig function in vikunja/pkg/modules/dump/restore.go of the go-vikunja/vikunja repository fails to sanitize file paths within the provided ZIP archive. A maliciously crafted ZIP can bypass the intended extraction…
more
directory to overwrite arbitrary files on the host system. Additionally, we’ve discovered that a malformed archive triggers a runtime panic, crashing the process immediately after the database has been wiped permanently. The application trusts the metadata in the ZIP archive. It uses the Name attribute of the zip.File struct directly in os.OpenFile calls without validation, allowing files to be written outside the intended directory. The restoration logic assumes a specific directory structure within the ZIP. When provided with a "minimalist" malicious ZIP, the application fails to validate the length of slices derived from the archive contents. Specifically, at line 154, the code attempts to access an index of len(ms)-2 on an insufficiently populated slice, triggering a panic. Version 2.0.0 fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces the intended directory access authorizations that path traversal would otherwise bypass.
Input validation directly neutralizes special path elements before pathname construction occurs.
Least privilege reduces the impact of any unauthorized file access obtained via traversal.
Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
Patching/maintenance can remediate known path-traversal flaws in deployed software (partial prevention of exploitability) but does nothing to stop the coding defect from being introduced in the first place.
PR.AA-05 defines and reviews access policies but does not address code-level pathname neutralization, so neither direction prevents CWE-22.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches path traversal via static/dynamic analysis.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and path sanitization that directly prevent path traversal.
Application security requirements include rules for safe file handling and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles require least-privilege file access and directory isolation.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe path construction and mandate safe APIs.
Information access restriction limits which files an application may read or write.