GHSA-2c6v-8r3v-gh6p CVE-2026-25232 GO-2026-4498
Gogs has a Protected Branch Deletion Bypass in Web Interface
- 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:589m.Post("/delete/*", reqSignIn, reqRepoWriter, repo.DeleteBranchPost)
Root Cause
The DeleteBranchPost function performs the following checks when deleting a branch:
- ✅ User authentication (
reqSignIn) - ✅ Write permission check (
reqRepoWriter) - ✅ Branch existence verification
- ✅ CommitID matching (optional parameter)
- ❌ Missing protected branch check
- ❌ 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
- Have Write permissions to the target repository (collaborator or team member)
- Target repository has protected branches configured (e.g., main, master, develop)
- 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
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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