mirror of
https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden.git
synced 2026-05-07 12:34:03 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #6565] Excessive requests to /api/tasks (IP ban) #19243
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @nathgoat on GitHub (Dec 17, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/6565
Prerequisites
Vaultwarden Support String
I am using Vaultwarden and my server eventually bans my client IP due to excessive requests.
This happens:
So it does not appear to be extension-specific.
Observed behavior:
Error seen in server logs:
[17/Dec/2025:08:39:27 +0100] - 404 404 - GET https domain.tld "/api/tasks" [Client X.X.X.X] [Length 677] [Gzip 2.41] [Sent-to X.X.X.X] "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36" "-"
Scope:
Expected behavior:
Vaultwarden Build Version
2025.12.0
Deployment method
Official Container Image
Custom deployment method
Yes. Vaultwarden is deployed using Docker behind a reverse proxy with rate limiting enabled.
No other custom modifications have been applied to Vaultwarden itself.
Reverse Proxy
.
Host/Server Operating System
Linux
Operating System Version
Debian 12
Clients
Browser Extension
Client Version
Edge 143.0.3650.80
Steps To Reproduce
Install and use Vaultwarden normally (extension or desktop app)
Log in and access the vault
Leave the client running for some time
Observe repeated GET requests to /api/tasks returning 404
Client IP eventually gets banned by server-side protections
Expected Result
The client should not repeatedly retry after persistent 404 responses, and normal usage should not trigger IP bans.
Actual Result
The client continuously sends requests to /api/tasks returning 404, triggering rate limiting and an IP ban.
Logs
Screenshots or Videos
Additional Context
No response
@stefan0xC commented on GitHub (Dec 17, 2025):
That endpoint was added already in #6557 and is available in the current
testingimage. If you don't want to use that you should downgrade your clients until there's a new release.@BlackDex commented on GitHub (Dec 17, 2025):
Closing as resolved via #6557