CVE-2026-68587: SiYuan: missing authz exposes publish-disabled docs

GHSA-69mh-gvh4-8gp7HIGHPoC AVAILABLECISA: TRACK*
Published September 3, 2026
CISO Take

Three SiYuan API endpoints named for write operations (getHeadingDeleteTransaction, getHeadingLevelTransaction, getHeadingInsertTransaction) actually just compute and return a transaction payload that embeds the fully rendered HTML of a heading and its subtree, and none of them apply the publish-access filter that the legitimate read endpoint (getDoc) enforces. Any anonymous visitor to a public SiYuan publish instance, or any reader-role token, who supplies a heading block ID can pull the full content of a document an administrator explicitly marked non-public, with a CVSS 8.6 confidentiality-only impact and no privileges or user interaction required. There is no CISA KEV listing, no public exploit code, and no Nuclei template, and EPSS is low in absolute terms (0.00245) despite sitting in the 84th percentile, so this looks opportunistic rather than actively weaponized today, but the one precondition (a valid block ID) is trivially satisfiable by chaining a companion enumeration bug (getHeadingChildrenIDs) reported separately against the same publish boundary, turning this into an end-to-end unauthenticated content-disclosure chain. Upgrade to the patched build (commit 69db783b782a, 2026-07-21) on any internet-facing SiYuan publish instance immediately, and until patched, disable public publish mode or enforce Publish.Auth for anything containing sensitive notes. Detection: watch publish-facing access logs for anonymous POSTs to /api/block/getHeading*Transaction, which have no legitimate anonymous use case.

Sources:NVDGitHub AdvisoryEPSSOpenSSFATLAS

What is the risk?

High confidentiality risk with low current exploitation pressure. The CVSS 8.6 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H) reflects that any network attacker can trigger disclosure with zero privileges and no interaction, and the scope-changed vector means it reaches across the publish/admin boundary the vendor designed. In isolation the attack requires a specific heading block ID, which is high-entropy and not returned by these endpoints, limiting mass exploitation. However, this vulnerability was reported alongside sibling publish-boundary bypasses (e.g. getHeadingChildrenIDs) that leak exactly those IDs without authorization, so the realistic end-to-end risk for any organization running SiYuan's publish feature is full unauthenticated document disclosure, not merely a targeted read. Absence from CISA KEV, absence of public PoC/Nuclei coverage, and a low absolute EPSS score (0.00245) indicate no evidence of in-the-wild exploitation yet, but the bug class (missing authorization on a content-serving path) is simple to find via code review or route diffing once a researcher looks for it, so the exposure window matters more than current EPSS.

How does the attack unfold?

Reconnaissance
Attacker discovers a SiYuan publish instance exposed on port 6808 with publish authentication disabled.
AML.T0006
ID acquisition
Attacker obtains a target heading's block ID via a companion CheckAuth-only endpoint (e.g. getHeadingChildrenIDs) that also lacks the publish-access filter.
AML.T0036
Exploitation
Attacker sends an anonymous POST to getHeadingDeleteTransaction (or its siblings) with the block ID, bypassing the publish-access check that getDoc enforces.
AML.T0049
Impact
The response's rendered block DOM discloses the full content of a document the administrator marked publish-disabled, with no mutation and no trace of a typical 'read' request.
AML.T0036

What systems are affected?

PackageEcosystemVulnerable RangePatched
Jupyter Notebookgo< 0.0.0-20260721013353-69db783b782a0.0.0-20260721013353-69db783b782a
13.5KOpenSSF 5.83.0K dependentsPushed 2d ago79% patched~75d to patchFull package profile →

Do you use Jupyter Notebook? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
8.6 / 10
EPSS
0.3%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Higher than 25% of all CVEs
Exploitation Status
Exploit Available
Exploitation: MEDIUM
Sophistication
Trivial
Exploitation Confidence
medium
○CISA SSVC: Public PoC
○Public PoC indexed (trickest/cve)
Composite signal derived from CISA KEV, VulnCheck KEV, CISA SSVC, EPSS, Metasploit, Exploit-DB, trickest/cve, Nuclei templates, and inthewild.io exploitation reports.

What is the attack surface?

AVACPRUISCIA
AVNetwork
ACLow
PRNone
UINone
SChanged
CHigh
INone
ANone

What should I do?

1 step
  1. 1) Upgrade SiYuan kernel to the patched version (commit 69db783b782aea865ea70a1c5ab656e5c0f3dadb or later, released 2026-07-21) — this is the primary fix. 2) Until patched, do not run publish mode exposed to the internet with Publish.Auth.Enable set to false; require Basic Auth or a strong publish password for any publish-enabled workspace. 3) Network-restrict or firewall port 6808 (publish) separately from 6806 (admin/API), and avoid exposing either directly without a reverse proxy enforcing additional access control. 4) Audit which documents are currently marked publish-disabled and verify none contain sensitive data that may have already been exposed via this or the companion ID-enumeration issue. 5) Detection: log and alert on anonymous/reader-token POST requests to /api/block/getHeadingDeleteTransaction, getHeadingLevelTransaction, or getHeadingInsertTransaction — these should essentially never originate from unauthenticated publish visitors in normal use.

What does CISA's SSVC say?

DecisionTrack*
Exploitationpoc
AutomatableYes
Technical Impactpartial

Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.

How is it classified?

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

This CVE is relevant to:

ISO 42001
A.7.2-Data for AI systems
OWASP LLM Top 10
LLM06-Sensitive Information Disclosure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-68587?

Three SiYuan API endpoints named for write operations (getHeadingDeleteTransaction, getHeadingLevelTransaction, getHeadingInsertTransaction) actually just compute and return a transaction payload that embeds the fully rendered HTML of a heading and its subtree, and none of them apply the publish-access filter that the legitimate read endpoint (getDoc) enforces. Any anonymous visitor to a public SiYuan publish instance, or any reader-role token, who supplies a heading block ID can pull the full content of a document an administrator explicitly marked non-public, with a CVSS 8.6 confidentiality-only impact and no privileges or user interaction required. There is no CISA KEV listing, no public exploit code, and no Nuclei template, and EPSS is low in absolute terms (0.00245) despite sitting in the 84th percentile, so this looks opportunistic rather than actively weaponized today, but the one precondition (a valid block ID) is trivially satisfiable by chaining a companion enumeration bug (getHeadingChildrenIDs) reported separately against the same publish boundary, turning this into an end-to-end unauthenticated content-disclosure chain. Upgrade to the patched build (commit 69db783b782a, 2026-07-21) on any internet-facing SiYuan publish instance immediately, and until patched, disable public publish mode or enforce Publish.Auth for anything containing sensitive notes. Detection: watch publish-facing access logs for anonymous POSTs to /api/block/getHeading*Transaction, which have no legitimate anonymous use case.

Is CVE-2026-68587 actively exploited?

Proof-of-concept exploit code is publicly available for CVE-2026-68587, increasing the risk of exploitation.

How to fix CVE-2026-68587?

1) Upgrade SiYuan kernel to the patched version (commit 69db783b782aea865ea70a1c5ab656e5c0f3dadb or later, released 2026-07-21) — this is the primary fix. 2) Until patched, do not run publish mode exposed to the internet with Publish.Auth.Enable set to false; require Basic Auth or a strong publish password for any publish-enabled workspace. 3) Network-restrict or firewall port 6808 (publish) separately from 6806 (admin/API), and avoid exposing either directly without a reverse proxy enforcing additional access control. 4) Audit which documents are currently marked publish-disabled and verify none contain sensitive data that may have already been exposed via this or the companion ID-enumeration issue. 5) Detection: log and alert on anonymous/reader-token POST requests to /api/block/getHeadingDeleteTransaction, getHeadingLevelTransaction, or getHeadingInsertTransaction — these should essentially never originate from unauthenticated publish visitors in normal use.

What systems are affected by CVE-2026-68587?

This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: Personal knowledge management / note-taking platforms, Self-hosted content publishing portals, Content repositories feeding RAG or agent knowledge bases.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-68587?

CVE-2026-68587 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.6 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.32%.

What is the AI security impact?

Affected AI Architectures

Personal knowledge management / note-taking platformsSelf-hosted content publishing portalsContent repositories feeding RAG or agent knowledge bases

MITRE ATLAS Techniques

AML.T0006Active Scanning
AML.T0036Data from Information Repositories
AML.T0049Exploit Public-Facing Application

Compliance Controls Affected

ISO 42001: A.7.2
OWASP LLM Top 10: LLM06

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

**CVE:** This vulnerability corresponds to [CVE-2026-68587](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68587). ### Summary Three "heading transaction" endpoints `/api/block/getHeadingDeleteTransaction`, `/api/block/getHeadingLevelTransaction`, and `/api/block/getHeadingInsertTransaction` return the rendered block DOM of a heading and its subtree in the computed transaction payload, with no publish-access check. They are gated by `CheckAuth` only, so they are reachable by the publish `RoleReader` token, and by the anonymous account when `Publish.Auth.Enable` is `false`. Despite their write-implying names, these endpoints perform no mutation on this path, they compute a transaction object and return it, and that object contains `RenderNodeBlockDOM` output. As a result, an anonymous reader who supplies a heading block ID can read the full rendered content of a document that has been explicitly marked publish-disabled by an administrator, content that the reader-facing `/api/filetree/getDoc` path correctly refuses to return. ### Details **Route / auth tier.** All three routes are registered `CheckAuth`-only (no `CheckAdminRole`). `CheckAuth` admits `RoleReader`, and the publish proxy forwards port-6808 traffic with a Reader JWT (anonymous account when publish auth is disabled). Anonymous/reader reachable. **No publish-access filter.** `GetHeadingDeleteTransaction` / `GetHeadingLevelTransaction` / `GetHeadingInsertTransaction` load the heading's block tree and render its DOM into the returned transaction's operation data. None of the three invokes `IsReadOnlyRoleContext` / the publish-access filter that the reader-safe content path (`getDoc`) applies. The reader-facing content endpoints (`getDoc`, and the `CheckAdminRole`-gated `getBlockDOM`/`getBlockKramdown`) treat rendered block DOM as gated content; these three transaction endpoints return the same rendered DOM without that gate. **Write-implying name, read behavior.** On this code path the endpoints only *compute* the transaction (e.g. the `undoOperations` a delete would produce) and return it; nothing is deleted or modified. The returned operation data includes the rendered HTML of the heading subtree. This mismatch, mutation-shaped name, content-returning behavior is why the gap is easy to miss. ### Proof of Concept Reproduced on a local instance (SiYuan running locally, publish mode enabled on port 6808, publish Basic Auth disabled). `DOC` is a document containing a heading `HEADING` whose body contains the unique marker `UNIQUE_MARKER_99`, and `DOC` is marked publish-disabled by the administrator. **1. Confirm the document is publish-disabled (admin action, the boundary that should block reads):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/filetree/setPublishAccess Authorization: Token <admin-token> {"id":"DOC","visible":false,"password":"","disable":true} ``` **2. Baseline: the reader-safe content path correctly blocks it (anonymous, port 6808):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/filetree/getDoc {"id":"DOC"} ``` Returns the blocked/placeholder response, the publish filter is applied, no content. **3. Disclosure: the transaction endpoint returns the content (anonymous, port 6808):** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getHeadingDeleteTransaction {"id":"HEADING"} ``` Returns HTTP 200; `data.undoOperations[].data` contains the rendered HTML of the heading subtree, including the hidden body text `UNIQUE_MARKER_99`. Nothing is deleted — the endpoint only computes the transaction. This is the full content of a publish-disabled document returned to an anonymous reader. **4. Sibling endpoints: same disclosure, same input:** ``` POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getHeadingLevelTransaction {"id":"HEADING","level":2} POST http://127.0.0.1:6808/api/block/getHeadingInsertTransaction {"id":"HEADING"} ``` Both return the rendered DOM of the heading subtree in their operation data. ### Impact An anonymous reader (publish mode with auth disabled) or any publish `RoleReader` who supplies a heading block ID can read the full rendered content of a publish-disabled document, defeating a boundary the administrator explicitly configured. **Precondition:** the request requires the target heading's block ID. Block IDs are high-entropy and are not returned by this endpoint, so this endpoint alone does not permit untargeted enumeration of arbitrary documents. However, block/heading IDs for publish-disabled documents are obtainable from other `CheckAuth`-only endpoints that lack the publish-access filter (the publish-boundary handler set reported separately, e.g. `getHeadingChildrenIDs`). Chained with such an ID source, this yields end-to-end unauthenticated full-content disclosure of publish-disabled documents. Presented standalone, the attacker must already possess the heading ID. Impact is confidentiality-only: these endpoints return content but do not (on this path) modify data. No admin role, CSRF token, or write permission is required. Encrypted notebooks are out of scope. ### Suggested fix Apply the same publish-access check the content path uses `IsReadOnlyRoleContext` / the publish-access filter used by `getDoc` to all three `getHeading*Transaction` handlers, or gate them behind `CheckAdminRole` consistent with `getBlockDOM`/`getBlockKramdown`. Any endpoint that returns rendered block DOM should enforce the same publish boundary as the primary content path.

Exploitation Scenario

An attacker locates an internet-facing SiYuan instance running in publish mode with authentication disabled (common in self-hosted 'share my notes publicly' setups). Using a separately-disclosed information-leak endpoint (getHeadingChildrenIDs) that also lacks the publish-access filter, the attacker enumerates heading block IDs belonging to a document the owner explicitly marked as publish-disabled — for example, a draft containing credentials, internal roadmap notes, or confidential research pulled into a personal knowledge base feeding an AI assistant. The attacker then sends an anonymous POST to /api/block/getHeadingDeleteTransaction with that block ID. The server computes what a delete operation would look like, embeds the fully rendered HTML of the heading and its subtree in the response, and returns HTTP 200 without deleting anything. The attacker extracts the hidden content directly from the JSON response, fully bypassing the publish-access boundary the document owner configured, with no authentication, no CSRF token, and no trace beyond a routine-looking API call.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-862 — Missing Authorization: The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

  • [Architecture and Design] Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • [Architecture and Design] Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Timeline

Published
September 3, 2026
Last Modified
September 3, 2026
First Seen
September 4, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities