dbcve.org
Improper AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-285

CVE-2026-41572

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
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.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

Note Mark versions prior to 0.19.3 contain an insecure direct object reference (IDOR) where notes and assets from soft-deleted public books remain accessible via /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, slug URLs, and asset endpoints. The vulnerability stems from GORM's soft-delete scope not being applied to raw JOIN queries used for note and asset retrieval, allowing unauthenticated attackers with knowledge of note IDs or slugs to access deleted content.

MitigationUpgrade to Note Mark version 0.19.3 or later. If immediate upgrade is not possible, audit all note and asset query endpoints to manually filter out records from soft-deleted books using appropriate WHERE conditions.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine installed Note Mark version
    Check the application's version file, package.json, or run 'note-mark --version' if CLI available. Compare against the affected range: versions prior to 0.19.3.
    Affected if Running Note Mark version 0.19.2 or earlier
  2. Identify exposed API endpoints
    Review web server configuration and application routing to determine if /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, slug-based note URLs, and asset endpoints are accessible.
    Affected if Any of these endpoints are publicly accessible
  3. Check database for soft-deleted books
    Query the database for records in the books table where the soft-delete timestamp/flag is set (typically a 'deleted_at' column with a non-null value).
    Affected if Any books exist with soft-delete timestamps set
  4. Test access to deleted content
    Using a known note ID or slug from a soft-deleted book, make HTTP requests to /api/notes/{id}, /api/notes/{id}/content, or slug URL endpoints without authentication.
    Affected if HTTP requests return 200 OK with the deleted note or asset content

Environment is affected if running Note Mark version below 0.19.3 and the vulnerable API endpoints are accessible while soft-deleted books exist in the database.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to Note Mark version 0.19.3 or later. If immediate upgrade is not possible, audit all note and asset query endpoints to manually filter out records from soft-deleted books using appropriate WHERE conditions.

Recommended fix High confidence

0.19.3

  1. Backup your current note-mark installation and database
  2. Download note-mark version 0.19.3 from the official repository
  3. Stop the running note-mark service
  4. Replace the existing installation files with version 0.19.3
  5. Review any new configuration requirements in the release notes
  6. Restart the note-mark service
  7. Verify that soft-deleted books and their notes/assets are no longer accessible without proper authorization
  8. Test that authenticated users can still access non-deleted content as expected

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41572 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-41572 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data