Skip to content

GHSA-q423-49rw-g9mh CVE-2026-58510 GO-2026-6069

Gitea: GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp ClearRepoWatches fix not applied to API EditRepo path — sister code path retains stale watches on public->private

Medium Go
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.30% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-281 Improper Preservation of Permissions
CWE-359 Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp ("Gitea may send release notification emails for private repositories to users whose access has been revoked", fix in PR #36319 / commit 8a98ac22) added repo_model.ClearRepoWatches as a defense for the state transition public→private. The cleanup was wired into services/repository/repository.go::MakeRepoPrivate only. The sister helper services/repository/repository.go::updateRepository — which is the function used by the API path PATCH /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo} — was not patched and still calls ClearRepoStars only.

As a result, when a public repository is flipped to private via the REST API (rather than via the web Settings → Danger Zone UI), the watch records persist. Affected users can:

  • See the now-private repository in GET /api/v1/user/subscriptions?private=true along with its full Repository JSON (description, default branch, language, fork status, counts, mirror metadata, license list, etc.) — even though they have no access to the repository.
  • Have their stale watch records re-leak content through any future notification path that does not include the send-time CheckRepoUnitUser check that was added to services/mailer/mail_release.go.
  • Inflate the visible NumWatches counter on the repository.

Severity

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

Same impact class as the original GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp (which was classified Medium). The send-time mail filter added in the same PR mitigates the release-content disclosure vector. The residual leak is repo metadata via the subscriptions endpoint and stale watcher counts.

CWE-281 (Improper Preservation of Permissions), CWE-359 (Exposure of Private Personal Information), CWE-200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information).

Affected Versions

Every release starting from v1.25.4 (the release shipping the original GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp fix) through HEAD (master @ ef801bb6, 2026-05-16). The follow-up refactor in commit 943ff752 (PR #36959, 2026-03-24) which merged MakeRepoPublic+MakeRepoPrivate did not propagate the ClearRepoWatches call to updateRepository.

Affected Component

  • services/repository/repository.go:240-302 — func updateRepository(ctx, repo, visibilityChanged bool), the sister helper called via the API path. Clears stars on line 273 but never calls ClearRepoWatches.
  • routers/api/v1/repo/repo.go::Edit (line 573) → updateBasicProperties (line 678-697) → repo_service.UpdateRepository(ctx, repo, visibilityChanged) (line 726) — the API path that exercises the sister helper.

Steps to Reproduce

The bug is observable purely from static analysis; the live PoC is straightforward.

  1. Start a Gitea instance at any release from v1.25.4 onwards (verified static at HEAD ef801bb6).

  2. Create users A (org admin) and B (member). Create a public repository A/proj. As B, watch the repo:

    curl -u B:<token> -X PUT "https://gitea.example.com/api/v1/repos/A/proj/subscription"
    
  3. As A, flip the repo to private via the REST API (not via the web UI):

    curl -u A:<token> -X PATCH "https://gitea.example.com/api/v1/repos/A/proj" \
         -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
         -d '{"private": true}'
    
  4. As B, list B's watched repos with private=true:

    curl -u B:<token> "https://gitea.example.com/api/v1/user/subscriptions"
    

    The now-private repo A/proj is returned in B's subscription list, with the full Repository payload — including description, default_branch, language, topics, license, fork/branch/issue/release counts, etc.

  5. Compare with the web-UI path (which IS patched). As A, flip a different public repo A/proj2 to private via Settings → Danger Zone → "Make this repository private" (which calls repo_service.MakeRepoPrivate). Verify B's subscription list no longer contains A/proj2.

The asymmetry of outcomes between steps 4 and 5 — for the same state transition — is the gap.

Direct Evidence (no PoC needed)

$ gh api repos/go-gitea/gitea/contents/services/repository/repository.go \
    --jq .content | base64 -d | grep -n "ClearRepoWatches\|ClearRepoStars" 

154:                  if err = repo_model.ClearRepoStars(ctx, repo.ID); err != nil {
157:                  if err = repo_model.ClearRepoWatches(ctx, repo.ID); err != nil {  # MakeRepoPrivate
273:                  if err = repo_model.ClearRepoStars(ctx, repo.ID); err != nil {  # updateRepository — ClearRepoWatches missing here

The fix-author's own test file confirms the asymmetry:

$ gh api repos/go-gitea/gitea/contents/services/repository/repository_test.go --jq .content | base64 -d | grep -n "Test.*VisibilityChanged\|Test.*ClearsWatches"

44:func TestUpdateRepositoryVisibilityChanged(t *testing.T) {     # only checks act.IsPrivate
73:func TestMakeRepoPrivateClearsWatches(t *testing.T) {           # checks watches are cleared

TestUpdateRepositoryVisibilityChanged explicitly calls updateRepository(ctx, repo, true) (line 53) and asserts act.IsPrivate (line 61) — but never verifies GetRepoWatchersIDs returns empty, while the parallel TestMakeRepoPrivateClearsWatches does. The test asymmetry mirrors the fix asymmetry.

Impact

  • An organization that uses terraform-gitea or any other REST-API-driven automation to flip repositories private (the canonical IaC pattern) hits updateRepository, not MakeRepoPrivate.
  • An organization using the official Gitea SDK (go-sdk, py-gitea, etc.) or curl scripts to make repos private after an internal policy change hits the same path.
  • Multi-tenant Gitea-as-a-service operators with API-driven repository-lifecycle endpoints are exposed.

Stale watch rows leak through GET /user/subscriptions (with the watcher's own credentials), GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/subscribers (stale NumWatches total), and become a re-leak surface for any future notification path that forgets the send-time access check.

Suggested Fix

Drop-in mirror of the call already present in MakeRepoPrivate. In services/repository/repository.go::updateRepository, inside the existing if repo.IsPrivate { ... } branch (around line 265-276), add the ClearRepoWatches call directly after ClearRepoStars:

// services/repository/repository.go
func updateRepository(ctx context.Context, repo *repo_model.Repository, visibilityChanged bool) (err error) {
    ...
    if visibilityChanged {
        ...
        // If repo has become private, we need to set its actions to private.
        if repo.IsPrivate {
            _, err = e.Where("repo_id = ?", repo.ID).Cols("is_private").Update(&activities_model.Action{
                IsPrivate: true,
            })
            if err != nil {
                return err
            }

            if err = repo_model.ClearRepoStars(ctx, repo.ID); err != nil {
                return err
            }

            // Match MakeRepoPrivate's behavior — see PR #36319 / GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp.
            // Stale watch rows on a now-private repo leak repository metadata to ex-watchers
            // via GET /user/subscriptions?private=true and through any future notification
            // path that does not have a send-time access check.
            if err = repo_model.ClearRepoWatches(ctx, repo.ID); err != nil {
                return err
            }
        }
        ...
    }
    ...
}

Regression test (mirror of TestMakeRepoPrivateClearsWatches) to add to services/repository/repository_test.go:

func TestUpdateRepositoryClearsWatchesOnVisibilityChange(t *testing.T) {
    assert.NoError(t, unittest.PrepareTestDatabase())

    repo := unittest.AssertExistsAndLoadBean(t, &repo_model.Repository{ID: 1})
    assert.False(t, repo.IsPrivate)

    watchers, err := repo_model.GetRepoWatchersIDs(t.Context(), repo.ID)
    require.NoError(t, err)
    require.NotEmpty(t, watchers)

    repo.IsPrivate = true
    assert.NoError(t, updateRepository(t.Context(), repo, true))

    watchers, err = repo_model.GetRepoWatchersIDs(t.Context(), repo.ID)
    assert.NoError(t, err)
    assert.Empty(t, watchers)

    updatedRepo := unittest.AssertExistsAndLoadBean(t, &repo_model.Repository{ID: repo.ID})
    assert.Zero(t, updatedRepo.NumWatches)
}

Optional belt-and-suspenders: an integration test against PATCH /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo} with body {"private": true} that exercises the entire API path through routers/api/v1/repo/repo.go::Edit.

Discovery Methodology

This finding follows the "sister-fix-incomplete" lens that has been productive across several recent reports: pick a recent advisory where the fix lands as a single PR touching one function, then grep the codebase for parallel call sites that should have received the same defense.

For Gitea:

  1. Enumerate recent advisories via gh api graphql ... securityVulnerabilities(ecosystem: GO, package: code.gitea.io/gitea).
  2. GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp stood out because the description names a state transition (public→private) — a class of bug where the defense is typically wired into a single helper.
  3. gh api repos/.../commits/8a98ac221 --jq '.files[] | .filename' listed the fix files; ClearRepoWatches was added to one function.
  4. grep -rn "ClearRepoWatches\|MakeRepoPrivate" revealed two functions in services/repository/repository.go that handle the state transition: MakeRepoPrivate (patched) and the lowercase sister updateRepository (unpatched).
  5. Walked the call chain from routers/api/v1/repo/repo.go::Edit to confirm the API path uses updateRepository, not MakeRepoPrivate.

Pre-emptive rebuttals

  • "The send-time filter in MailNewRelease already blocks release-content disclosure" — Correct, and acknowledged. The residual leak this report concerns is metadata via the GET /user/subscriptions endpoint and stale NumWatches. The send-time filter is a necessary but not sufficient defense; the ClearRepoWatches call is the persistence-side belt-and-suspenders that the original PR author explicitly added.
  • "The web UI is the supported path; the API path is not in scope" — The API is documented public surface (swagger spec in templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl), Gitea ships official SDKs (go-sdk, py-gitea) that use exactly this path, and there is an official Terraform provider that exercises it. The existing fix is in a sister helper used by both paths' upstream helper — the fix author plainly intended to defend both.
  • "AccessMode is None in the subscription response, so the client should infer no-access" — The response still returns the full Repository payload including description, default branch, language, fork status, counts, mirror metadata, OriginalURL, license, etc. (see services/convert/repository.go::innerToRepo line 189-259). AccessMode: 0 does not gate the metadata fields, only the Permissions{Admin,Push,Pull} triple.

References

  • GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp — the original advisory: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp
  • PR #36319 "clean watches when make a repository private and check permission when send release emails" (commit 8a98ac221)
  • PR #36959 "Require additional user confirmation for making repo private" (commit 943ff7523) — the later refactor that did not propagate the cleanup
  • Patched function: services/repository/repository.go::MakeRepoPrivate (line 125, calls ClearRepoWatches line 157)
  • Unpatched sister: services/repository/repository.go::updateRepository (line 240, calls only ClearRepoStars line 273)
  • API entry: routers/api/v1/repo/repo.go::Edit → updateBasicProperties → repo_service.UpdateRepository → updateRepository
  • Test asymmetry: services/repository/repository_test.go::TestMakeRepoPrivateClearsWatches (covered) vs TestUpdateRepositoryVisibilityChanged (does not assert watches cleared)

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 4.3

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
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-281: Improper Preservation of Permissions

The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.

CWE-359: Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product does not properly prevent a person's private, personal information from being accessed by actors who either (1) are not explicitly authorized to access the information or (2) do not have the implicit consent of the person about whom the information is collected.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Identify and consult all relevant regulations for personal privacy. An organization may be required to comply with certain federal and state regulations, depending on its location, the type of business it conducts, and the nature of any private data it handles. Regulations may include Safe Harbor Privacy Framework [REF-340], Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLBA) [REF-341], Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) [REF-342], General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [REF-1047], California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) [REF-1048], and others.
  • Architecture and Design: Carefully evaluate how secure design may interfere with privacy, and vice versa. Security and privacy concerns often seem to compete with each other. From a security perspective, all important operations should be recorded so that any anomalous activity can later be identified. However, when private data is involved, this practice can in fact create risk. Although there are many ways in which private data can be handled unsafely, a common risk stems from misplaced trust. Programmers often trust the operating environment in which a program runs, and therefore believe that it is acceptable store private information on the file system, in the registry, or in other locally-controlled resources. However, even if access to certain resources is restricted, this does not guarantee that the individuals who do have access can be trusted.
  • Implementation, Operation: Some tools can automatically analyze documents to redact, strip, or "sanitize" private information, although some human review might be necessary. Tools may vary in terms of which document formats can be processed. When calling an external program to automatically generate or convert documents, invoke the program with any available options that avoid generating sensitive metadata. Some formats have well-defined fields that could contain private data, such as Exchangeable image file format (Exif), which can contain potentially sensitive metadata such as geolocation, date, and time [REF-1515] [REF-1516].

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-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