CVE-2026-35601
Vikunja ≤ 2.3.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-35601 is a medium-severity CRLF Injection (CWE-93) vulnerability in Vikunja Vikunja. Its CVSS base score is 4.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 9th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21428
Vulnerability Data
Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to 2.3.0, the CalDAV output generator builds iCalendar VTODO entries via raw string concatenation without applying RFC 5545 TEXT value escaping. User-controlled task titles containing CRLF characters break the iCalendar property…
more
boundary, allowing injection of arbitrary iCalendar properties such as ATTACH, VALARM, or ORGANIZER. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.3.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.2.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops untrusted data containing CRLF sequences from reaching the component that treats CRLF as a delimiter.
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 directly require input neutralization and validation to block CRLF injection.
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 can detect CRLF flaws but does not itself implement the neutralization.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection.
Application security requirements include rules for neutralizing special characters such as CRLF in inputs.
Secure architecture principles encourage safe handling of untrusted data but do not prescribe specific CRLF controls.
Secure coding standards explicitly require neutralization of CRLF sequences, fully addressing this weakness.