Skip to content

Vaultwarden's Collection Management Operations Allowed Without `manage` Verification for Manager Role

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 4, 2026 in dani-garcia/vaultwarden • Updated Mar 4, 2026

Package

cargo vaultwarden (Rust)

Affected versions

<= 1.35.3

Patched versions

1.35.4

Description

Summary

Testing confirmed that even when a Manager has manage=false for a given collection, they can still perform the following management operations as long as they have access to the collection:

  • PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id> succeeds (HTTP 200)
  • PUT /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id>/users succeeds (HTTP 200)
  • DELETE /api/organizations/<org_id>/collections/<col_id> succeeds (HTTP 200)

Description

  • The Manager guard checks only whether the user can access the collection, not whether they have manage privileges. This check is directly applied to management endpoints.
    src/auth.rs:816

    if !Collection::can_access_collection(&headers.membership, &col_id, &conn).await {
        err_handler!("The current user isn't a manager for this collection")
    }
  • The can_access_collection function does not evaluate the manage flag.
    src/db/models/collection.rs:140

    pub async fn can_access_collection(member: &Membership, col_id: &CollectionId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool {
        member.has_status(MembershipStatus::Confirmed)
            && (member.has_full_access()
                || CollectionUser::has_access_to_collection_by_user(col_id, &member.user_uuid, conn).await
                || ...
  • A separate management-permission check exists and includes manage validation, but it is not used during authorization for the affected endpoints.
    src/db/models/collection.rs:516

    pub async fn is_manageable_by_user(&self, user_uuid: &UserId, conn: &DbConn) -> bool {
        let Some(member) = Membership::find_confirmed_by_user_and_org(user_uuid, &self.org_uuid, conn).await else {
            return false;
        };
        if member.has_full_access() {
            return true;
        }
        ...
  • The actual update and deletion endpoints only accept ManagerHeaders and do not perform additional manage checks.
    src/api/core/organizations.rs:608

  async fn put_organization_collection_update(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

src/api/core/organizations.rs:890

  async fn put_collection_users(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

src/api/core/organizations.rs:747

  async fn delete_organization_collection(..., headers: ManagerHeaders, ...)

Preconditions

  • The attacker is a Manager within the target organization.
  • The attacker has access to the target collection (assigned=true).
  • The attacker’s permission for that collection is manage=false.
  • A valid API access token has been obtained.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Confirm that the attacker’s current permissions for the target collection include manage=false.

image

  1. As a control test, verify that update operations fail for collections the attacker cannot access.

image

  1. Confirm that update operations succeed for the target collection where manage=false.

image

  1. Use PUT /collections/{col_id}/users to set manage=true, confirming that the attacker can escalate their own privileges.

image

  1. Verify that deletion of the collection succeeds despite the Manager lacking management rights.

image

Required Minimum Privileges

  • Organization Manager role (Owner/Admin privileges are not required)
  • Works even with access_all=false
  • Only access rights to the target collection are required (manage privilege is not required)

Attack Scenario

A restricted Manager (intended for read/use-only access) directly invokes the API to update collection settings, elevate their own privileges to manage=true, and even delete the collection.

This allows the user to bypass operational access restrictions and effectively gain administrator-equivalent control over the collection.

Potential Impact

  • Confidentiality: Expansion of access scope through unauthorized privilege escalation and configuration changes.
  • Integrity: Unauthorized modification of collection settings and assignments; potential disabling of access controls.
  • Availability: Deletion of collections may disrupt business operations.

References

@dani-garcia dani-garcia published to dani-garcia/vaultwarden Mar 4, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 4, 2026
Reviewed Mar 4, 2026
Last updated Mar 4, 2026

Severity

High

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(13th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor. Learn more on MITRE.

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.

Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-27803

GHSA ID

GHSA-h4hq-rgvh-wh27

Credits

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