Discourse is an open source discussion platform. Prior to versions 2025.12.2, 2026.1.1, and 2026.2.0, an IDOR vulnerability in the directory items endpoint allows any user, including anonymous users, to retrieve private user field values for all users in the directory. The user_field_ids parameter in DirectoryItemsController#index accepts arbitrary user field IDs without authorization checks, bypassing the visibility restrictions (show_on_profile / show_on_user_card) that are enforced elsewhere (e.g., UserCardSerializer via Guardian#allowed_user_field_ids). An attacker can request GET /directory_items.json?period=all&user_field_ids=<id> with any private field ID and receive that fields value for every user in the directory response. This enables bulk exfiltration of private user data such as phone numbers, addresses, or other sensitive custom fields that admins have explicitly configured as non-public. The issue is patched in versions 2025.12.2, 2026.1.1, and 2026.2.0 by filtering user_field_ids against UserField.public_fields for non-staff users before building the custom field map. As a workaround, site administrators can remove sensitive data from private user fields, or disable the user directory via the enable_user_directory site setting.
Weakness
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.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discourse | Discourse | * | 2025.12.0 (excluding) |
| Discourse | Discourse | 2026.1.0 (including) | 2026.1.1 (excluding) |
| Discourse | Discourse | 2026.2.0 (including) | 2026.2.0 (including) |
Potential Mitigations
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
- Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.