GHSA-8p9h-49rc-qgxj CVE-2026-58437 GO-2026-6047
Gitea: Repository Visibility Manipulation via Git Push Options
- Severity
- 7.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.34%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.50% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-284 Improper Access Control
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Repository Visibility Manipulation via Git Push Options
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Affected File | routers/private/hook_post_receive.go |
| Affected Function | HookPostReceive() |
| Affected Lines | 173–225 |
| Prerequisite | Attacker must have owner-level or admin collaborator access to the target repository |
Description
Gitea's post-receive git hook handler processes git push options — key-value pairs transmitted by a client during git push using the -o flag. Two undocumented push options, repo.private and repo.template, allow any user with repository owner or admin-collaborator access to toggle the visibility (private/public) and template status of a repository as a side effect of a normal git push.
This capability was originally intended solely for the "push-to-create" feature (automatically creating a repo on first push). However, the options are processed without restriction on already-existing repositories, and — critically — the visibility change bypasses every control that a proper settings change would trigger:
- No entry written to the repository's audit/activity log
- No webhook event fired (
repositoryevent withvisibility_changedaction) - No org-level notification to owners
- No team permission re-calculation
- No email alert to watchers
- The database update uses
UpdateRepositoryColsNoAutoTime, which also suppresses theupdated_attimestamp change
Vulnerable Code
routers/private/hook_post_receive.go:173–225
isPrivate := opts.GitPushOptions.Bool(private.GitPushOptionRepoPrivate) // "repo.private"
isTemplate := opts.GitPushOptions.Bool(private.GitPushOptionRepoTemplate) // "repo.template"
if isPrivate.Has() || isTemplate.Has() {
// ... loads repo and verifies pusher is owner or admin ...
if !perm.IsOwner() && !perm.IsAdmin() {
ctx.JSON(http.StatusNotFound, ...)
return
}
// FIXME: these options are not quite right, for example: changing visibility
// should do more works than just setting the is_private flag
// These options should only be used for "push-to-create"
if isPrivate.Has() && repo.IsPrivate != isPrivate.Value() {
// TODO: it needs to do more work
repo.IsPrivate = isPrivate.Value()
repo_model.UpdateRepositoryColsNoAutoTime(ctx, repo, "is_private")
// ^^^ bypasses updated_at timestamp, audit trail suppressed
}
if isTemplate.Has() && repo.IsTemplate != isTemplate.Value() {
repo.IsTemplate = isTemplate.Value()
repo_model.UpdateRepositoryColsNoAutoTime(ctx, repo, "is_template")
}
}
The push option constants are defined in modules/private/pushoptions.go:18–19:
GitPushOptionRepoPrivate = "repo.private"
GitPushOptionRepoTemplate = "repo.template"
Attack Scenario
Scenario A — Insider threat / rogue admin collaborator
An organization grants a contractor repo admin access to contribute to a private repository containing proprietary source code. The contractor, before their access is revoked, makes a private repo public for several minutes — long enough to clone, archive, or index the content — then makes it private again. The action leaves no audit trail distinguishable from a normal git push.
Scenario B — Supply-chain template poisoning
A repository marked as a template is used by CI/CD pipelines to generate new project repositories. An admin collaborator uses repo.template=false to silently remove the template designation, then makes changes to the repo's content, re-marks it as a template with repo.template=true, and waits for downstream consumers to regenerate projects from the now-backdoored template. The updated_at timestamp is unchanged due to UpdateRepositoryColsNoAutoTime, making diff-detection harder.
Step-by-Step Reproduction
Prerequisites:
- A Gitea user account with either owner or admin-collaborator access to a private repository
gitclient with push access to the repository
Step 1 — Confirm the target repository is private
Step 2 — Clone the repository
git clone http://USER:PASSWORD@<gitea-host>/OWNER/REPO.git /tmp/target-repo
cd /tmp/target-repo
Step 3 — Make any commit (the push option rides on a real push)
echo "$(date)" >> .gitkeep
git add .gitkeep
git commit -m "routine update"
Step 4 — Execute the exploit push
# Make the repository public
git push http://USER:PASSWORD@<gitea-host>/OWNER/REPO.git main \
-o repo.private=false
# The push completes with a normal success message:
# remote: Processed 1 references in total
# To http://<gitea-host>/OWNER/REPO.git
# abc1234..def5678 main -> main
Step 5 — Verify the repository is now public
Step 6 — Restore and cover tracks
Re-make it private in the same session, leaving no visible audit trail
The repository activity feed shows only two normal push events. The visibility change is invisible.
Verification: confirm no activity log entry
Impact Details
| Impact | Description |
|---|---|
| Data exfiltration | Private source code, CI/CD secrets in plain-text files, environment configs become publicly cloneable for the window the repo is public |
| No audit trail | UpdateRepositoryColsNoAutoTime suppresses the updated_at change; no activity log entry; no webhook; no notification |
| Supply chain | Combined with repo.template=true/false, an attacker can silently rotate repository template status, affecting all downstream repositories that generate from this template |
| Scope | Affects all repos where the attacker has admin-collaborator access — not only repos they own |
Recommended Fix
Option 1 (preferred) — Remove the options from post-receive hook entirely. The repo.private and repo.template push options were designed for the push-to-create flow and have no legitimate use on existing repositories. They should be gated with:
// routers/private/hook_post_receive.go
if isPrivate.Has() || isTemplate.Has() {
if !wasEmpty {
// repo already existed — refuse these options on established repos
log.Warn("Repo push options repo.private/repo.template ignored for existing repo %s", repoName)
// do not process
} else {
// original push-to-create path only
...
}
}
Option 2 — Route through the full visibility-change service so that audit events, webhooks, and team re-syncs are triggered:
// Instead of the raw UpdateRepositoryColsNoAutoTime call:
if err := repo_service.UpdateRepositoryVisibility(ctx, repo, isPrivate.Value()); err != nil {
...
}
Where UpdateRepositoryVisibility fires the repository webhook event and writes an activity log entry.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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 7.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-284: Improper Access Control
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- 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.
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-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 |
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