Skip to content

GHSA-6cqf-375w-639g CVE-2026-50105 GO-2026-6036

Gitea: RSS/Atom feed handlers bypass API-token scope & public-only confinement (incomplete fix of #37698)

Medium Go
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.36%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 29.70% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

Gitea's RSS/Atom feed handlers accept API-token Basic auth but perform no token-scope or public-only enforcement. A personal access token that is correctly blocked (HTTP 403) from a private repository on /raw, /media, /archive, and /releases/download/... — because it is marked public-only or lacks the repository scope category — still returns that repository's private content through the feed routes. This is a token-confinement bypass and appears to be an incomplete fix of #37698, which added that scope enforcement to the download handlers but not to the sibling feed handlers.

This is not a cross-user access bug: the requesting account must still legitimately have repo read access (RepoAssignment + reqUnitCodeReader are enforced). What is bypassed is the guarantee that a confined token cannot reach private content — which is exactly the property #37698 was shipped to provide for downloads, and which matters when such a token is handed to a third-party service/CI, leaked, or used in a lower-trust integration.

Details

#37698 added context.CheckTokenScopes / CheckRepoScopedToken (services/context/permission.go) to the raw / media / archive / attachment download handlers, so a public-only or wrong-scope-category token cannot read private-repo content even when the owning user otherwise has access.

The feed handlers are registered with webAuth.AllowBasic (so they accept token Basic auth) but call no scope / public-only check. A grep for CheckTokenScopes / CheckRepoScopedToken / IsApiToken across routers/web/feed/ and the release feed handlers returns nothing.

Affected routes (all token-reachable via webAuth.AllowBasic, none call the scope check):

Route Handler Private data exposed
GET /{owner}/{repo}.rss / .atom repo.Home → handleRepoHomeFeed (view_home.go) last-10 commits: SHA, full message, author name + email
GET /{owner}/{repo}/rss/branch/*, /atom/branch/* feed.RenderBranchFeed* → ShowBranchFeed (routers/web/feed/branch.go) same commit data, any branch
GET /{owner}/{repo}/releases.rss / .atom ReleasesFeedRSS/Atom (routers/web/repo/release.go) → ShowReleaseFeed private release names, notes, descriptions
GET /{owner}/{repo}/tags.rss / .atom TagsListFeedRSS/Atom → ShowReleaseFeed private tag names + messages
GET /{user}.rss / .atom showUserFeed (routers/web/feed/profile.go), includePrivate = self || admin the token owner's private cross-repo activity stream

Inconsistency that pins this down: the branch-feed routes sit in the same route group as /raw, /media, /archive (all of which call checkDownloadTokenScope), and releases.rss sits next to /releases/attachments/{uuid} and /releases/download/... (both go through ServeAttachment → scope check). Only the feeds were missed. The API equivalents (ListReleases / ListTags) are scope-gated via tokenRequiresScopes.

Two distinct confinement bypasses:

  1. Public-only bypass. A token created with the public-only option is blocked (403) from a private repo on /raw, /archive, /releases/download/..., but returns private commit / release data via .../releases.rss, .../rss/branch/*, /{owner}/{repo}.rss, and the owner's private activity via /{user}.rss.
  2. Scope-category bypass. A token scoped to only e.g. read:issue (no read:repository) is rejected by the download handlers but reads repository commit/release content via the feeds.

PoC

Verified live against the official gitea/gitea:1.26.2 Docker image (sqlite, feeds enabled).

Setup: non-admin user alice; private repo alice/secret with a commit "SECRET-COMMIT-MARKER ..." (file secret.txt) and a release "Private Release" / body "SECRET-RELEASE-MARKER ...". Two confined personal access tokens, both sent via HTTP Basic so the auth method is identical across download and feed — only the route differs:

  • Token A: scopes ["public-only", "read:repository"]
  • Token B: scopes ["read:issue"]
# Token A — download is correctly blocked, feeds leak private content:
curl -u alice:$TOKEN_A https://<host>/alice/secret/raw/branch/main/secret.txt   # => 403  (fix works)
curl -u alice:$TOKEN_A https://<host>/alice/secret/rss/branch/main             # => 200, <title>SECRET-COMMIT-MARKER ...</title>
curl -u alice:$TOKEN_A https://<host>/alice/secret/releases.rss               # => 200, SECRET-RELEASE-MARKER ...
curl -u alice:$TOKEN_A "https://<host>/alice.rss"                             # => 200, private activity

# Token B — wrong scope category, same split:
curl -u alice:$TOKEN_B https://<host>/alice/secret/raw/branch/main/secret.txt   # => 403
curl -u alice:$TOKEN_B https://<host>/alice/secret/rss/branch/main             # => 200, private commit leaked

Anonymous baseline returns 404 on the repo feeds (data is genuinely private) and a marker-free 200 on /alice.rss (public activity only) — confirming the leak is gated only by the missing token check.

Impact

Information disclosure of private commit metadata (SHA, message, author name+email), release/tag notes, and the owner's private activity stream, to the holder of a confined token that was specifically configured not to reach private content. Not raw file blobs (feeds don't serve file contents). Requires a token belonging to an account that already has repo read access, so the realistic threat is a leaked / shared / lower-trust token rather than an anonymous attacker — which is precisely the threat model #37698 addressed for downloads.

Suggested remediation

Add a token-scope check at the top of each feed handler, mirroring checkDownloadTokenScope:

if context.CheckRepoScopedToken(ctx, ctx.Repo.Repository, auth_model.Read); ctx.Written() {
    return
}

for ShowBranchFeed, ShowRepoFeed, ShowFileFeed, ShowReleaseFeed (repo feeds). For the user feed, gate includePrivate behind a non-public-only token (or require the user / repository scope) so a confined token can't pull private activity.

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 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-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

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-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