GHSA-3fwp-p5rj-2pxf CVE-2026-27783 GO-2026-5081
Gitea: Missing repository-unit authorization on issue-template API endpoints
- 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
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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