Every CVE Search/ Get API key

CVE-2026-50554

Note Mark: Unauthenticated disclosure of soft-deleted note metadata via deleted=true on public books in note-mark

5.3 MediumFix available

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.5, GET /api/books/{bookID}/notes is an unauthenticated endpoint that accepts a "deleted" query parameter. When the request is ?deleted=true, the service runs the query with Unscoped() (bypassing GORM's soft-delete scope) but keeps the read-authorization clause as "owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?". As a result, any unauthenticated caller can enumerate the metadata of soft-deleted ("trashed") notes belonging to any public book — notes the owner explicitly deleted and expected to be removed from public view. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.5.

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

0.42%Up 0.4 points since Jun 12, 2026
90%50%10%1%

What each source reports

CVE List Score used 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated disclosure of soft-deleted note metadata via deleted=true on public books in note-mark

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.5, GET /api/books/{bookID}/notes is an unauthenticated endpoint that accepts a "deleted" query parameter. When the request is ?deleted=true, the service runs the query with Unscoped() (bypassing GORM's soft-delete scope) but keeps the read-authorization clause as "owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?". As a result, any unauthenticated caller can enumerate the metadata of soft-deleted ("trashed") notes belonging to any public book — notes the owner explicitly deleted and expected to be removed from public view. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.5.

Record
CVE-2026-50554
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-200, CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-70529 5.3

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.5, GET /api/books/{bookID}/notes is an unauthenticated endpoint that accepts a "deleted" query parameter. When the request is ?deleted=true, the service runs the query with Unscoped() (bypassing GORM's soft-delete scope) but keeps the read-authorization clause as "owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?". As a result, any unauthenticated caller can enumerate the metadata of soft-deleted ("trashed") notes belonging to any public book — notes the owner explicitly deleted and expected to be removed from public view. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.5.

Record
EUVD-2026-70529
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-588f-fvcv-xhvf 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated disclosure of soft-deleted note metadata via deleted=true on public books

Summary

GET /api/books/{bookID}/notes is an unauthenticated endpoint that accepts a "deleted" query parameter. When the request is ?deleted=true, the service runs the query with Unscoped() (bypassing GORM's soft-delete scope) but keeps the read-authorization clause as "owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?". As a result, any unauthenticated caller can enumerate the metadata of soft-deleted ("trashed") notes belonging to any public book — notes the owner explicitly deleted and expected to be removed from public view.

Affected component (code-verified)

backend/services/notes.go — GetNotesByBookID (lines 72-89):

func (s NotesService) GetNotesByBookID(currentUserID *uuid.UUID, bookID uuid.UUID, deleted bool) ([]db.Note, error) { tx := db.DB if deleted { tx = tx.Unscoped() // <-- bypasses soft-delete scope } tx = tx. Preload("Book"). Joins("JOIN books ON books.id = notes.book_id"). Where( db.DB.Where("books.id = ?", bookID), db.DB.Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true), // <-- is_public still honored for trash ) if deleted { tx = tx.Where("notes.deleted_at IS NOT NULL") } var notes []db.Note return notes, dbErrorToServiceError(tx.Find(&notes).Error) }

Route registration confirms the endpoint has no AuthRequiredMiddleware (backend/handlers/notes.go:37), and the deleted flag is attacker-controlled (backend/handlers/notes.go:86 — Deleted bool with query:"deleted").

Proof of concept

  1. A victim owns a public book (is_public = true), creates a note, then soft-deletes it (moves it to trash). The note still exists in the DB with deleted_at set.
  2. An unauthenticated attacker who knows (or enumerates) the book UUID requests: GET /api/books/<bookID>/notes?deleted=true
  3. The response lists the soft-deleted note(s) — id, title, slug, timestamps — even though the attacker is not authenticated and the owner intended the note to be deleted.

Impact

Exposure of soft-deleted note metadata (title, slug, timestamps) of public books to unauthenticated actors. The note body is not exposed — the content endpoint (GetNoteContent) does not use Unscoped(), so its count query returns 0 for soft-deleted notes and yields 404. Impact is therefore limited to metadata disclosure and the bypass of the intended "delete" semantics on public books.

Remediation

Restrict trash (soft-deleted) listings to the book owner only — never honor the is_public branch when deleted=true:

func (s NotesService) GetNotesByBookID(currentUserID *uuid.UUID, bookID uuid.UUID, deleted bool) ([]db.Note, error) { tx := db.DB if deleted { tx = tx.Unscoped() }

  • // Soft-deleted ("trash") notes must only ever be listed to the book owner.

  • authz := db.DB.Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true)

  • if deleted {

  •         authz = db.DB.Where("owner_id = ?", currentUserID)

  • }
tx = tx.
        Preload("Book").
        Joins("JOIN books ON books.id = notes.book_id").
        Where(
                db.DB.Where("books.id = ?", bookID),

  •                 db.DB.Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true),

  •                 authz,
        )
if deleted {
        tx = tx.Where("notes.deleted_at IS NOT NULL")
}
var notes []db.Note
return notes, dbErrorToServiceError(tx.Find(&notes).Error)

}

With this change, when currentUserID is nil (unauthenticated) and deleted=true, the clause becomes owner_id = NULL, which matches nothing — so trash is never exposed to anonymous callers.

Coordinated disclosure / CVE request

We have reported this privately and are happy to assist with any further validation or…

Record
GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
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-200, CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
NVD 5.3

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.5, GET /api/books/{bookID}/notes is an unauthenticated endpoint that accepts a "deleted" query parameter. When the request is ?deleted=true, the service runs the query with Unscoped() (bypassing GORM's soft-delete scope) but keeps the read-authorization clause as "owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?". As a result, any unauthenticated caller can enumerate the metadata of soft-deleted ("trashed") notes belonging to any public book — notes the owner explicitly deleted and expected to be removed from public view. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.5.

Record
CVE-2026-50554
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-200, CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
OSV 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated disclosure of soft-deleted note metadata via deleted=true on public books in note-mark

Note Mark is an open-source note-taking application. Prior to version 0.19.5, GET /api/books/{bookID}/notes is an unauthenticated endpoint that accepts a "deleted" query parameter. When the request is ?deleted=true, the service runs the query with Unscoped() (bypassing GORM's soft-delete scope) but keeps the read-authorization clause as "owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?". As a result, any unauthenticated caller can enumerate the metadata of soft-deleted ("trashed") notes belonging to any public book — notes the owner explicitly deleted and expected to be removed from public view. This issue has been patched in version 0.19.5.

Record
CVE-2026-50554
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-200, CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf 5.3

Note Mark: Unauthenticated disclosure of soft-deleted note metadata via deleted=true on public books

Summary

GET /api/books/{bookID}/notes is an unauthenticated endpoint that accepts a "deleted" query parameter. When the request is ?deleted=true, the service runs the query with Unscoped() (bypassing GORM's soft-delete scope) but keeps the read-authorization clause as "owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?". As a result, any unauthenticated caller can enumerate the metadata of soft-deleted ("trashed") notes belonging to any public book — notes the owner explicitly deleted and expected to be removed from public view.

Affected component (code-verified)

backend/services/notes.go — GetNotesByBookID (lines 72-89):

func (s NotesService) GetNotesByBookID(currentUserID *uuid.UUID, bookID uuid.UUID, deleted bool) ([]db.Note, error) { tx := db.DB if deleted { tx = tx.Unscoped() // <-- bypasses soft-delete scope } tx = tx. Preload("Book"). Joins("JOIN books ON books.id = notes.book_id"). Where( db.DB.Where("books.id = ?", bookID), db.DB.Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true), // <-- is_public still honored for trash ) if deleted { tx = tx.Where("notes.deleted_at IS NOT NULL") } var notes []db.Note return notes, dbErrorToServiceError(tx.Find(&notes).Error) }

Route registration confirms the endpoint has no AuthRequiredMiddleware (backend/handlers/notes.go:37), and the deleted flag is attacker-controlled (backend/handlers/notes.go:86 — Deleted bool with query:"deleted").

Proof of concept

  1. A victim owns a public book (is_public = true), creates a note, then soft-deletes it (moves it to trash). The note still exists in the DB with deleted_at set.
  2. An unauthenticated attacker who knows (or enumerates) the book UUID requests: GET /api/books/<bookID>/notes?deleted=true
  3. The response lists the soft-deleted note(s) — id, title, slug, timestamps — even though the attacker is not authenticated and the owner intended the note to be deleted.

Impact

Exposure of soft-deleted note metadata (title, slug, timestamps) of public books to unauthenticated actors. The note body is not exposed — the content endpoint (GetNoteContent) does not use Unscoped(), so its count query returns 0 for soft-deleted notes and yields 404. Impact is therefore limited to metadata disclosure and the bypass of the intended "delete" semantics on public books.

Remediation

Restrict trash (soft-deleted) listings to the book owner only — never honor the is_public branch when deleted=true:

func (s NotesService) GetNotesByBookID(currentUserID *uuid.UUID, bookID uuid.UUID, deleted bool) ([]db.Note, error) { tx := db.DB if deleted { tx = tx.Unscoped() }

  • // Soft-deleted ("trash") notes must only ever be listed to the book owner.

  • authz := db.DB.Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true)

  • if deleted {

  •         authz = db.DB.Where("owner_id = ?", currentUserID)

  • }
tx = tx.
        Preload("Book").
        Joins("JOIN books ON books.id = notes.book_id").
        Where(
                db.DB.Where("books.id = ?", bookID),

  •                 db.DB.Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true),

  •                 authz,
        )
if deleted {
        tx = tx.Where("notes.deleted_at IS NOT NULL")
}
var notes []db.Note
return notes, dbErrorToServiceError(tx.Find(&notes).Error)

}

With this change, when currentUserID is nil (unauthenticated) and deleted=true, the clause becomes owner_id = NULL, which matches nothing — so trash is never exposed to anonymous callers.

Coordinated disclosure / CVE request

We have reported this privately and are happy to assist with any further validation or…

Record
GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
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-200, CWE-285
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGO-2026-5948 No score

Note Mark: Unauthenticated disclosure of soft-deleted note metadata via deleted=true on public books in github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend

Note Mark: Unauthenticated disclosure of soft-deleted note metadata via deleted=true on public books in github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend

Record
GO-2026-5948
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 0.0.0-20260601210758-9c9b72740f22
0.0.0-20260601210758-9c9b72740f22
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-2026-50554 is a medium vulnerability (CVSS 5.3) in Enchant97 Note-mark, published July 9, 2026. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.42%, the 36th percentile. Fixed in github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend 0.0.0-20260601210758-9c9b72740f22.

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