Skip to content

Kimai: Login CSRF in Default Team Creation Endpoints Allows Unauthorized Team and Permission Structure Changes

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 3, 2026 in kimai/kimai • Updated Jul 13, 2026

Package

composer kimai/kimai (Composer)

Affected versions

<= 2.57.0

Patched versions

2.58.0

Description

Summary

Kimai 2.56.0 contains authenticated cross-site request forgery issues in its default team creation shortcuts for projects, customers, and activities. These endpoints are exposed through GET routes and directly create or reuse a Team, add the current user as teamlead, and bind the target object to that team.

As a result, an attacker can trick a logged-in user with the required permissions into visiting a malicious page and cause unauthorized changes to team, teamlead, and object-binding relationships. This is a real authorization-structure modification issue rather than a harmless UI shortcut.

Details

The issue affects at least the following routes:

  • GET /en/admin/project/{id}/create_team
  • GET /en/admin/customer/{id}/create_team
  • GET /en/admin/activity/{id}/create_team

Each of these routes is a GET endpoint, yet each performs persistent writes that alter authorization structure:

  • create or reuse a Team
  • add the current user as teamlead
  • bind the target Project, Customer, or Activity to that team

A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.

Impact

This vulnerability allows an attacker to remotely alter permission topology while the victim is logged in. A successful exploit can create or reuse a team, assign the victim as its teamlead, and bind a project, customer, or activity to that team without intentional user action.

The pre-requisite is, that the logged-in user already has access to manage permissions of the object in question.

Because these routes modify authorization structure rather than a simple personal preference, the business impact can extend into visibility rules, assignment scope, team-based access control, reporting, and later privilege-expansion chains. This makes the issue materially more serious than a low-value cosmetic CSRF.

Solution

  • The routes have been moved to API POST endpoints

See https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-pgcc-vfmc-7cw5

References

@kevinpapst kevinpapst published to kimai/kimai Jun 3, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 13, 2026
Reviewed Jul 13, 2026
Last updated Jul 13, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-49992

GHSA ID

GHSA-pgcc-vfmc-7cw5

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.