Skip to content

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

High Go
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:

  1. The web UI PR-create endpoint binds allow_maintainer_edit=true without verifying that the submitter has write access to the HEAD repository.
  2. 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.
  3. On git push over HTTP/SSH, Gitea relaxes the required access mode to Read when SupportProcReceive is enabled (routers/web/repo/githttp.go, routers/private/serv.go) and defers enforcement to the pre-receive hook.
  4. The pre-receive hook calls CanMaintainerWriteToBranch (models/issues/pull_list.go), which finds the malicious PR, sees AllowMaintainerEdit=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

  1. Attacker forks the target repository.
  2. Attacker visits the web compare endpoint and creates a PR with BASE = their_fork, HEAD = upstream, and "Allow edits from maintainers" checked.
  3. 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

poc.py

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:

  1. At PR creation: before setting AllowMaintainerEdit = true, verify the submitter has write access to the HEAD repository.
  2. 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 trust AllowMaintainerEdit solely based on BASE write access.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed 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

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-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
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