Skip to content

GHSA-p9f5-h3rx-j5qw CVE-2026-52799 GO-2026-5536

Gogs Missing Authorization in Attachment Download

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.42%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 36.59% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.14.3
Upgrade gogs.io/gogs to this version or later

Description

Summary

In Gogs 0.14.1, GET /attachments/:uuid returns the raw attachment file without verifying whether the requester has view permission for the associated Issue/Comment/Release or the repository. In a test environment with REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW = false, we confirmed that an unauthenticated user can download attachments belonging to a private repository.

Description

/attachments/:uuid retrieves an attachment record solely by the UUID provided in the URL and returns the corresponding local file without performing any authorization checks against the attachment’s parent object (Issue/Comment/Release) or the repository it belongs to. As a result, even attachments under private repositories can be downloaded by an unauthenticated user (or a user without proper permissions) as long as the UUID is known.

Relevant code (internal/cmd/web.go:306):

m.Get("/attachments/:uuid", func(c *context.Context) {
	attach, err := database.GetAttachmentByUUID(c.Params(":uuid"))
	if err != nil {
		c.NotFoundOrError(err, "get attachment by UUID")
		return
	} else if !com.IsFile(attach.LocalPath()) {
		c.NotFound()
		return
	}

	fr, err := os.Open(attach.LocalPath())
	if err != nil {
		c.Error(err, "open attachment file")
		return
	}
	defer fr.Close()

	c.Header().Set("Content-Security-Policy", "default-src 'none'; style-src 'unsafe-inline'; sandbox")
	c.Header().Set("Cache-Control", "public,max-age=86400")
	c.Header().Set("Content-Disposition", fmt.Sprintf(`inline; filename="%s"`, attach.Name))

	if _, err = io.Copy(c.Resp, fr); err != nil {
		c.Error(err, "copy from file to response")
		return
	}
})

The UUID lookup itself also performs no validation tied to repository visibility or user permissions. Authorization is not enforced at this layer.

Relevant code (internal/database/attachment.go:124):

// GetAttachmentByUUID returns attachment by given UUID.
func GetAttachmentByUUID(uuid string) (*Attachment, error) {
	return getAttachmentByUUID(x, uuid)
}

Preconditions

  • The attacker knows the target attachment’s UUID (i.e., the attachment URL).
  • For unauthenticated exploitation: [auth] REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW = false.
  • Even when REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW = true, exploitation may still be possible because the handler does not check repository-level permissions; a user who can log in but lacks access to the target repository may still retrieve the attachment.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Log in as an administrator and create a private repository, e.g. myadmin/idor-attach-1770724346-1a13bb.
  2. Add an attachment to an Issue in that repository and note the attachment UUID (example UUID used during testing: f06d90f8-5b62-4c10-ac8d-f11fdf870b57).
  3. Log out and access the following as an unauthenticated user:
  • The repository page → 404 Not Found <img width="1702" height="758" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8fdb1d92-cfc3-4ef8-977e-60ec13f792df" />

  • The Issue page under that repository → 404 Not Found <img width="1983" height="546" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c44c5e69-8ca2-4ea6-a071-62302b7e896f" />

  • GET /attachments/<uuid> → the attachment file is successfully downloaded <img width="2007" height="378" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/23950ac6-6b3a-42f8-a06b-b9e0cf508d24" />

Minimum Required Privileges

  • REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW = false: none (works without authentication).
  • REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW = true: only the ability to log in (repository view permission is not required in practice).

Impact

  • Confidential information attached to private repositories or restricted Issues/Releases may be disclosed.

    • Examples include credentials, cryptographic keys, personal data, internal documents, or unpublished source code fragments.
  • While the severity depends on the attachment contents, attachments frequently contain sensitive data, making the potential impact high.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
gogs.io/gogs
< 0.14.3
0.14.3
gogs.io/gogs
all versions
No fix yet

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.

gogs.io/gogs Go → 0.14.3

go
go get gogs.io/gogs@v0.14.3 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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-mq8m-42gh-wq7r
Gogs vulnerable to a bypass of CVE-2024-55947
High Known exploited Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-3w28-36p9-w929
Gogs's Unauthenticated Jupyter Notebook (ipynb) Sanitizer allows arbitrary data: URIs leading to XSS
Medium Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-744x-3838-5r56
Gogs Vulnerable to Unauthenticated Organization Teams Information Disclosure via API
Medium Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-xp79-5mx3-jx52
Gogs has Unauthenticated Asymmetric Denial of Service (DoS) via SSH Handshake Stall (File Descriptor Exhaustion)
Medium Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-c39w-43gm-34h5
Gogs has Path Traversal in organization name that results in RCE through Git hooks
Critical Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-6p9m-q3jp-47h4
Gogs: LFS dedupe path leaks private repo content across tenants
High Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-89mr-xqfv-758m
Gogs: UploadRepoFiles writes outside repo working tree via committed parent sym
Critical Also affects gogs.io/gogs
GHSA-wmfg-5p4h-5fw3
Gogs allows users to write to readonly repositories using receive-pack + service=git-upload-pack confusion
High Also affects gogs.io/gogs
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