Kimai has Improper Authorization in Team Member and Team Activity Assignment APIs Which Allows Expansion of Team Scope Beyond Authorized VisibilityGHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg
GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg is a CWE-285 vulnerability in kimai/kimai. A fix is available for kimai/kimai — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
Real-World Exposure
kimai/kimaiReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Packagist packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
Kimai contains an authenticated improper authorization vulnerability in Team-related assignment APIs. A Teamlead who can edit their own team can use backend API endpoints to add users or activities that fall outside their intended visible or manageable scope, even when the frontend correctly hides those targets.
This affects both team member assignment and team activity assignment. The issue is caused by treating "may edit this team" as equivalent to "may attach any referenced object to this team", without performing a second authorization check on the target user or activity.
Details
The issue affects at least the following API routes:
POST /api/teams/{id}/members/{userId}POST /api/teams/{id}/activities/{activityId}
In both cases, the backend checks whether the caller may edit the Team, but it does not verify whether the referenced User or Activity falls inside the caller's allowed management scope.
For team member assignment, the frontend form correctly limits the visible user choices. In src/Form/TeamEditForm.php, the team edit form uses UserType:
$builder->add('users', UserType::class, [
'label' => 'add_user.label',
'help' => 'team.add_user.help',
'mapped' => false,
'multiple' => false,
'expanded' => false,
'required' => false,
'ignore_users' => $team !== null ? $team->getUsers() : []
]);
In src/Form/Type/UserType.php, the user selector is built from UserRepository::getQueryBuilderForFormType():
$query = new UserFormTypeQuery();
$query->setUser($options['user']);
$qb = $this->userRepository->getQueryBuilderForFormType($query);
$users = $qb->getQuery()->getResult();
And in src/Repository/UserRepository.php, Teamlead-visible candidates are limited to team members from teams they lead:
if (null !== $user && $user->isTeamlead()) {
$userIds = [];
foreach ($user->getTeams() as $team) {
if ($team->isTeamlead($user)) {
foreach ($team->getUsers() as $teamMember) {
$userIds[] = $teamMember->getId();
}
}
}
$userIds = array_unique($userIds);
$qb->setParameter('teamMember', $userIds);
$or->add($qb->expr()->in('u.id', ':teamMember'));
}
However, the actual member-assignment API does not reuse that restriction. In src/API/TeamController.php:
#[IsGranted('edit', 'team')]
#[Route(methods: ['POST'], path: '/{id}/members/{userId}', name: 'post_team_member', requirements: ['id' => '\d+', 'userId' => '\d+'])]
public function postMemberAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: ['userId' => 'id'])] User $member): Response
{
if ($member->isInTeam($team)) {
throw new BadRequestHttpException('User is already member of the team');
}
$team->addUser($member);
$this->teamService->saveTeam($team);
}
For activity assignment, the same pattern appears. In src/API/TeamController.php:
#[IsGranted('edit', 'team')]
#[Route(methods: ['POST'], path: '/{id}/activities/{activityId}', name: 'post_team_activity', requirements: ['id' => '\d+', 'activityId' => '\d+'])]
public function postActivityAction(Team $team, #[MapEntity(mapping: ['activityId' => 'id'])] Activity $activity, ActivityRepository $activityRepository): Response
{
if ($team->hasActivity($activity)) {
throw new BadRequestHttpException('Team has already access to activity');
}
$team->addActivity($activity);
$activityRepository->saveActivity($activity);
}
The Team voter only checks whether the current user may edit that team, not whether the referenced object is within the Teamlead's legitimate scope. In src/Voter/TeamVoter.php:
if (!$user->isAdmin() && !$user->isSuperAdmin() && !$user->isTeamleadOf($subject)) {
return false;
}
return $this->permissionManager->hasRolePermission($user, $attribute . '_team');
For activities, this is especially risky because later authorization logic may trust the team assignment that was just written. In src/Security/RolePermissionManager.php:
public function checkTeamAccessActivity(Activity $activity, User $user): bool
{
if ($activity->getProject() !== null && !$this->checkTeamAccessProject($activity->getProject(), $user)) {
return false;
}
return $this->checkTeamAccess($activity->getTeams(), $user);
}
So once a Teamlead is able to write a new team/activity relation, later access-control decisions may treat that relation as legitimate input.
A PoC was provided, but removed for security reasons.
Impact
This vulnerability allows a Teamlead to use their own editable team as an expansion container for objects that should remain outside their authorized scope. In the validated member-assignment case, the attacker can forcibly add users who are not supposed to be manageable through that Teamlead's visible range. In the activity-assignment case, the attacker can attach activities that are outside the intended authorization boundary of the team.
Once such relations are written, downstream authorization, visibility, and business workflows may start treating them as legitimate. This can affect user scoping, team-based access control, customer/project/activity visibility, time-entry behavior, statistics, and reporting. The issue therefore breaks the trustworthiness of Team as a security isolation container.
Solution
Several new permission checks were added to src/API/TeamController.php -
- Check if user can be accessed with
#[IsGranted('access_user', 'member')]before adding as new team member - Check if customer can be seen with
#[IsGranted('view', 'customer')]before a team is granted access to a customer - Check if project can be seen with
#[IsGranted('view', 'project')]before a team is granted access to a project - Check if activity can be seen with
#[IsGranted('view', 'activity')]before a team is granted access to an activity
See https://www.kimai.org/en/security/ghsa-xv4r-4885-gwpg for more information.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐘Packagist | kimai/kimai | all versions | 2.58.0composer require kimai/kimai:^2.58.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for kimai/kimai, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update kimai/kimai to 2.58.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-xv4r-4885-gwpg in your dependencies?
Find it across Packagist, including transitive dependencies.