Skip to content

GHSA-2c6v-8r3v-gh6p CVE-2026-25232 GO-2026-4498

Gogs has a Protected Branch Deletion Bypass in Web Interface

High Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.48%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.54% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
0.14.1
Upgrade gogs.io/gogs to this version or later

Description

Summary

An access control bypass vulnerability in Gogs web interface allows any repository collaborator with Write permissions to delete protected branches (including the default branch) by sending a direct POST request, completely bypassing the branch protection mechanism. This vulnerability enables privilege escalation from Write to Admin level, allowing low-privilege users to perform dangerous operations that should be restricted to administrators only.

Although Git Hook layer correctly prevents protected branch deletion via SSH push, the web interface deletion operation does not trigger Git Hooks, resulting in complete bypass of protection mechanisms.

Details

Affected Component

  • File: internal/route/repo/branch.go
  • Function: DeleteBranchPost (lines 110-155)
  • Route Configuration: internal/cmd/web.go:589
    m.Post("/delete/*", reqSignIn, reqRepoWriter, repo.DeleteBranchPost)
    

Root Cause

The DeleteBranchPost function performs the following checks when deleting a branch:

  1. ✅ User authentication (reqSignIn)
  2. ✅ Write permission check (reqRepoWriter)
  3. ✅ Branch existence verification
  4. ✅ CommitID matching (optional parameter)
  5. ❌ Missing protected branch check
  6. ❌ Missing default branch check

While the UI layer (internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658) correctly checks protected branch status and hides the delete button, attackers can directly construct POST requests to bypass UI restrictions.

Vulnerable Code

Vulnerable implementation (internal/route/repo/branch.go:110-155):

func DeleteBranchPost(c *context.Context) {
	branchName := c.Params("*")
	commitID := c.Query("commit")

	defer func() {
		redirectTo := c.Query("redirect_to")
		if !tool.IsSameSiteURLPath(redirectTo) {
			redirectTo = c.Repo.RepoLink
		}
		c.Redirect(redirectTo)
	}()

	if !c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(branchName) {
		return
	}
	if len(commitID) > 0 {
		branchCommitID, err := c.Repo.GitRepo.BranchCommitID(branchName)
		if err != nil {
			log.Error("Failed to get commit ID of branch %q: %v", branchName, err)
			return
		}

		if branchCommitID != commitID {
			c.Flash.Error(c.Tr("repo.pulls.delete_branch_has_new_commits"))
			return
		}
	}

	// 🔴 Vulnerability: Missing protected branch check here
	// Should add check like:
	// protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(c.Repo.Repository.ID, branchName)
	// if protectBranch != nil && protectBranch.Protected { ... }

	if err := c.Repo.GitRepo.DeleteBranch(branchName, git.DeleteBranchOptions{
		Force: true,
	}); err != nil {
		log.Error("Failed to delete branch %q: %v", branchName, err)
		return
	}

	if err := database.PrepareWebhooks(c.Repo.Repository, database.HookEventTypeDelete, &api.DeletePayload{
		Ref:        branchName,
		RefType:    "branch",
		PusherType: api.PUSHER_TYPE_USER,
		Repo:       c.Repo.Repository.APIFormatLegacy(nil),
		Sender:     c.User.APIFormat(),
	}); err != nil {
		log.Error("Failed to prepare webhooks for %q: %v", database.HookEventTypeDelete, err)
		return
	}
}

Correct implementation in Git Hook (internal/cmd/hook.go:122-125):

// check and deletion
if newCommitID == git.EmptyID {
    fail(fmt.Sprintf("Branch '%s' is protected from deletion", branchName), "")
}

Correct UI layer check (internal/route/repo/issue.go:646-658):

protectBranch, err := database.GetProtectBranchOfRepoByName(pull.BaseRepoID, pull.HeadBranch)
if err != nil {
	if !database.IsErrBranchNotExist(err) {
		c.Error(err, "get protect branch of repository by name")
		return
	}
} else {
	branchProtected = protectBranch.Protected
}

c.Data["IsPullBranchDeletable"] = pull.BaseRepoID == pull.HeadRepoID &&
	c.Repo.IsWriter() && c.Repo.GitRepo.HasBranch(pull.HeadBranch) &&
	!branchProtected  // UI layer has check, but backend doesn't

PoC

Prerequisites

  1. Have Write permissions to the target repository (collaborator or team member)
  2. Target repository has protected branches configured (e.g., main, master, develop)
  3. Access to Gogs web interface
Send Malicious POST Request
# Directly send DELETE request bypassing UI protection
curl -X POST \
  -b cookies.txt \
  -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
  -d "_csrf=YOUR_CSRF_TOKEN" \
  "https://gogs.example.com/username/repo/branches/delete/main"

<img width="1218" height="518" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/745da7c3-6139-408c-9747-ccbe9ea8548f" />

Impact

  • Bypass branch protection mechanism: The core function of protected branches is to prevent deletion, and this vulnerability completely undermines this mechanism
  • Delete default branch: Can cause repository to become inaccessible (git clone/pull failures)
  • Bypass code review: After deleting protected branch, can push new branch bypassing Pull Request requirements
  • Privilege escalation: Writer permission users can perform operations that should only be allowed for Admins

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
gogs.io/gogs
< 0.14.1
0.14.1
gogs.io/gogs
all versions
No fix yet

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.

gogs.io/gogs Go → 0.14.1

go
go get gogs.io/gogs@v0.14.1 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-863: 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.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: 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].
  • Architecture and Design: 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.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-mq8m-42gh-wq7r
Gogs vulnerable to a bypass of CVE-2024-55947
High Known exploited Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-3w28-36p9-w929
Gogs's Unauthenticated Jupyter Notebook (ipynb) Sanitizer allows arbitrary data: URIs leading to XSS
Medium Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-744x-3838-5r56
Gogs Vulnerable to Unauthenticated Organization Teams Information Disclosure via API
Medium Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-xp79-5mx3-jx52
Gogs has Unauthenticated Asymmetric Denial of Service (DoS) via SSH Handshake Stall (File Descriptor Exhaustion)
Medium Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-c39w-43gm-34h5
Gogs has Path Traversal in organization name that results in RCE through Git hooks
Critical Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-6p9m-q3jp-47h4
Gogs: LFS dedupe path leaks private repo content across tenants
High Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-89mr-xqfv-758m
Gogs: UploadRepoFiles writes outside repo working tree via committed parent sym
Critical Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-wmfg-5p4h-5fw3
Gogs allows users to write to readonly repositories using receive-pack + service=git-upload-pack confusion
High Also affects gogs.io/gogs
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