GHSA-mm7c-rhg6-qr4r CVE-2026-26231 GO-2026-5510
Gitea: Authorization Bypass via "Allow edits from maintainers" allows unauthorized commits to any readable repo
- Severity
- 8.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.36%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 29.84% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
1.26.2- Upgrade code.gitea.io/gitea to this version or later
Description
Summary
Any authenticated low-privilege user with read access to a repository can push arbitrary commits directly to that repository, bypassing all write-access checks.
Vulnerability
Gitea's "Allow edits from maintainers" PR option can be abused via reverse-fork PRs:
- The web UI PR-create endpoint binds
allow_maintainer_edit=truewithout verifying that the submitter has write access to the HEAD repository. - Gitea allows creating a PR where BASE = attacker's fork and HEAD = upstream target. The attacker is "maintainer" of the BASE (their own fork), so the flag is set against the upstream HEAD.
- On
git pushover HTTP/SSH, Gitea relaxes the required access mode toReadwhenSupportProcReceiveis enabled (routers/web/repo/githttp.go,routers/private/serv.go) and defers enforcement to the pre-receive hook. - The pre-receive hook calls
CanMaintainerWriteToBranch(models/issues/pull_list.go), which finds the malicious PR, seesAllowMaintainerEdit=true, and checks whether the pusher has write access to the BASE repo. Since BASE is the attacker's own fork, the check passes and the push is authorized against the upstream.
Exploitation
- Attacker forks the target repository.
- Attacker visits the web compare endpoint and creates a PR with
BASE = their_fork,HEAD = upstream, and "Allow edits from maintainers" checked. - Attacker clones their fork, makes a commit, and runs
git push <upstream_url> <branch>— the push is accepted.
Reproduction
python3 poc.py --repo http://gitea:3000/victim/repo --user attacker --password attacker_pass
Expected output:
[+] target: victim/my_repo default branch: main
[*] forking -> attacker/my_repo_pocfork (202)
[+] fork ready
[+] malicious PR created (BASE=attacker fork, HEAD=upstream)
remote: . Processing 1 references
remote: Processed 1 references in total
To http://192.168.101.20:3000/victim/my_repo.git
e5c07b3..9a0b884 main -> main
[+] latest commit on victim/my_repo@main: 'PoC: unauthorized commit via maintainer-edit bypass'
[+] CONFIRMED: unauthorized push to upstream succeeded.
A PWNED.txt file will appear on the target repo's default branch, committed by the attacker who has no write access.
Impact
Full repository compromise. Any logged-in user can backdoor any repository they can read, including all public repositories on the instance.
Suggested Fix
Two independent checks are missing; both should be added for defense in depth:
- At PR creation: before setting
AllowMaintainerEdit = true, verify the submitter has write access to the HEAD repository. - In
CanMaintainerWriteToBranch: verify that the PR's HEAD repo matches the repository being pushed to, and that the PR was opened by a legitimate owner/writer of the HEAD repository. Do not trustAllowMaintainerEditsolely based on BASE write access.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| code.gitea.io/gitea | < 1.26.2 |
1.26.2 |
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 → 1.26.2
- go
go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.26.2 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- 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