Skip to content

GHSA-3fwp-p5rj-2pxf CVE-2026-27783 GO-2026-5081

Gitea: Missing repository-unit authorization on issue-template API endpoints

Medium Go
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.35%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
1.26.2
Upgrade code.gitea.io/gitea to this version or later

Description

Summary

Three Gitea API endpoints — GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issue_templates, GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issue_config and GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issue_config/validate — read files from the repository's Code default branch (.gitea/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/* and issue_config.yaml) and return their contents, but are registered without the reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode) authorization middleware that every sibling Code-tree endpoint in the same route group carries.

A user who has access to a private repository through any single repository unit (for example an organization team granted only the Issues unit, with no Code access) can therefore read the issue-template and issue-config files of that repository's Code tree, which their permission set should not expose.


Root cause

The three endpoints lack the unit guard

routers/api/v1/api.go:1433-1437:

m.Get("/issue_templates", context.ReferencesGitRepo(), repo.GetIssueTemplates)
m.Get("/issue_config", context.ReferencesGitRepo(), repo.GetIssueConfig)
m.Get("/issue_config/validate", context.ReferencesGitRepo(), repo.ValidateIssueConfig)
m.Get("/languages", reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode), repo.GetLanguages)
m.Get("/licenses", reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode), repo.GetLicenses)

context.ReferencesGitRepo() only opens the git repository — it performs no permission check. Every other endpoint in this group that reads Code-tree content is guarded with reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode): /languages, /licenses, /contents/*, /file-contents, and /{ball_type:tarball|zipball|bundle}/* (api.go:1418-1445). The three issue-template endpoints are the only Code-tree readers in the group missing that guard.

The enclosing group runs repoAssignment() (api.go:1446), whose access check is satisfied by HasAnyUnitAccessOrPublicAccess — i.e. access to any unit of the repository is sufficient to pass. Without a per-unit reqRepoReader, the handlers run for a caller who has no Code permission.

The handlers return Code-tree file contents

routers/api/v1/repo/repo.go:

func GetIssueTemplates(ctx *context.APIContext) {                       // :1179
    ret := issue.ParseTemplatesFromDefaultBranch(ctx.Repo.Repository, ctx.Repo.GitRepo)
    ...
    ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, ret.IssueTemplates)
}

func GetIssueConfig(ctx *context.APIContext) {                          // :1209
    issueConfig, _ := issue.GetTemplateConfigFromDefaultBranch(ctx.Repo.Repository, ctx.Repo.GitRepo)
    ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, issueConfig)
}

ParseTemplatesFromDefaultBranch / GetTemplateConfigFromDefaultBranch read .gitea/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/* and issue_config.yaml from the default (Code) branch and return them in the JSON response.


Proof of Concept

victim-org/private-repo is a private repository. The attacker is a member of an organization team granted access to that repository through a non-Code unit only (e.g. the Issues unit) — a supported Gitea permission configuration.

GET /api/v1/repos/victim-org/private-repo/issue_templates HTTP/1.1
Host: TARGET
Authorization: token <attacker token>

The response is 200 OK with the parsed contents of the repository's .gitea/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/* files. The same applies to /issue_config. Because the caller lacks the Code unit, every other Code-tree endpoint (/contents, /languages, …) correctly returns 404/403 for the same token — only these three return data.


Impact

A repository collaborator whose granted permissions exclude the Code unit can read the issue-template and issue-config files from the Code default branch of a private repository. The exposure is limited to those specific configuration files (not arbitrary Code-tree content), which is why this is rated low impact. It is nonetheless a unit-level authorization bypass: the endpoints disclose Code-unit content to callers the permission model is meant to exclude.


Suggested fix

Add the same unit guard the sibling endpoints use, in routers/api/v1/api.go:

m.Get("/issue_templates", reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode), context.ReferencesGitRepo(), repo.GetIssueTemplates)
m.Get("/issue_config", reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode), context.ReferencesGitRepo(), repo.GetIssueConfig)
m.Get("/issue_config/validate", reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode), context.ReferencesGitRepo(), repo.ValidateIssueConfig)

(If issue templates are intended to be visible to Issues-unit users for issue creation, reqRepoReader(unit.TypeIssues) is the appropriate guard — but the current absence of any unit guard is the bug.)


References

  • CWE-862 Missing Authorization
  • CWE-284 Improper Access Control
  • OWASP A01:2021 Broken Access Control

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.gitea.io/gitea
< 1.26.2
1.26.2

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 → 1.26.2

go
go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.26.2 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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-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-2fcr-jfvc-vgg2
Gitea: Two SSRF findings
High Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
GHSA-fw57-jgch-pgf3
Gitea: ParseAcceptLanguage quadratic-time DoS via Locale middleware on unauthenticated requests
High Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
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