GHSA-vxv2-8j6r-pcpg CVE-2026-58425 GO-2026-6079
Gitea: OAuth token introspection returns metadata of tokens issued to other clients (RFC 7662 section 4 violation)
- 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-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Live reproduction against Gitea 1.26.1
Setup: Gitea 1.26.1 docker stack with two users (admin and victim) and two OAuth applications owned by different users:
Client A: id=5dda747d-7fdd-4694-85ff-ce4f893ce51e owner=admin
Client B: id=588f778f-4a41-4914-ae01-85d776c369db owner=victim
admin runs an OAuth flow against Client A and obtains an access token. victim (acting through Client B's credentials) calls the introspection endpoint with Client A's access token in the body:
$ curl -s -u "$B_ID:$B_SEC" -X POST http://localhost:3001/login/oauth/introspect \
--data-urlencode "token=$CLIENT_A_ACCESS_TOKEN"
{
"active": true,
"username": "admin",
"iss": "http://localhost:3001",
"sub": "1",
"aud": [
"5dda747d-7fdd-4694-85ff-ce4f893ce51e"
]
}
Note the aud claim: the server explicitly states the token's audience is Client A, yet returns the full metadata to Client B. Per RFC 7662 section 4 ("The authorization server SHOULD also limit the information it discloses about each token to the resources that are authorized to receive it") the introspection result must not be disclosed to clients other than the token's audience.
Full reproduction script attached as poc.sh. Full session log attached as live_run.log.
Root cause
routers/web/auth/oauth2_provider.go:130-175 IntrospectOAuth:
func IntrospectOAuth(ctx *context.Context) {
clientIDValid := false
authHeader := ctx.Req.Header.Get("Authorization")
if parsed, ok := httpauth.ParseAuthorizationHeader(authHeader); ok && parsed.BasicAuth != nil {
clientID, clientSecret := parsed.BasicAuth.Username, parsed.BasicAuth.Password
app, err := auth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByClientID(ctx, clientID)
if err != nil && !auth.IsErrOauthClientIDInvalid(err) {
log.Error("Error retrieving client_id: %v", err)
ctx.HTTPError(http.StatusInternalServerError)
return
}
clientIDValid = err == nil && app.ValidateClientSecret([]byte(clientSecret))
}
if !clientIDValid {
ctx.Resp.Header().Set("WWW-Authenticate", `Basic realm="Gitea OAuth2"`)
ctx.PlainText(http.StatusUnauthorized, "no valid authorization")
return
}
var response struct {
Active bool `json:"active"`
Scope string `json:"scope,omitempty"`
Username string `json:"username,omitempty"`
jwt.RegisteredClaims
}
form := web.GetForm(ctx).(*forms.IntrospectTokenForm)
token, err := oauth2_provider.ParseToken(form.Token, oauth2_provider.DefaultSigningKey)
if err == nil {
grant, err := auth.GetOAuth2GrantByID(ctx, token.GrantID)
if err == nil && grant != nil {
app, err := auth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByID(ctx, grant.ApplicationID) // shadows the introspecting client's `app`
if err == nil && app != nil {
response.Active = true
response.Scope = grant.Scope
response.RegisteredClaims = oauth2_provider.NewJwtRegisteredClaimsFromUser(app.ClientID, grant.UserID, nil)
}
if user, err := user_model.GetUserByID(ctx, grant.UserID); err == nil {
response.Username = user.Name
}
}
}
ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, response)
}
The handler:
- Authenticates the introspecting client via HTTP Basic (
app.ValidateClientSecret). The local variableappat this point references the introspecting client. - Loads the grant for
form.Tokenviaauth.GetOAuth2GrantByID(ctx, token.GrantID). - Reassigns
apptoauth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByID(ctx, grant.ApplicationID)(line 162). After this point,appis the token's issuing client, not the introspecting client. - Populates
responsefrom the reassignedappand the grant.
There is no comparison between the introspecting client's id and grant.ApplicationID. The endpoint will return metadata for any token whose JWT signature validates, regardless of which client is asking.
Patch parity with PR #37704
The same file contains two recently-hardened handlers in commit 7e54514316 ("fix(oauth): bind token exchanges to the original client request", PR #37704, 2026-05-15) that added exactly this missing check:
handleRefreshToken (routers/web/auth/oauth2_provider.go:561-568):
if grant.ApplicationID != app.ID {
handleAccessTokenError(ctx, oauth2_provider.AccessTokenError{
ErrorCode: oauth2_provider.AccessTokenErrorCodeInvalidGrant,
ErrorDescription: "refresh token belongs to a different client",
})
return
}
handleAuthorizationCode (routers/web/auth/oauth2_provider.go:640-647):
if authorizationCode.RedirectURI != "" && form.RedirectURI != authorizationCode.RedirectURI {
handleAccessTokenError(ctx, oauth2_provider.AccessTokenError{ ... })
return
}
// later in the same function:
if authorizationCode.Grant.ApplicationID != app.ID {
handleAccessTokenError(ctx, ...)
return
}
IntrospectOAuth shares the same problem space (it consumes a token bound to a grant whose application may differ from the requesting client) but did not receive the parallel patch.
Impact
Any authenticated OAuth client can call /login/oauth/introspect with another client's access or refresh token in the body and learn:
active(true or false). A token-validity oracle that survives across application boundaries without consuming or "using" the token.scope. The scope of the token.username. The user the token belongs to.iss,sub,aud. Standard JWT registered claims.audreveals the issuing client_id, making it obvious to the introspecting client that the token does not belong to them. The server returns the data anyway.
Practical scenarios:
- Stolen-token validation oracle. An attacker who exfiltrates an access token from logs, traffic capture, browser memory, or a leaked dump can verify the token is still active before using it for higher-noise actions like API calls. The probe does not consume the grant counter, so it does not appear in audit trails of "actual token use".
- Cross-tenant metadata enumeration. Any user can register their own OAuth application on a Gitea instance (web UI: /user/settings/applications). The attacker uses their own valid credentials to introspect tokens belonging to other tenants' clients. They learn which user/scope each token corresponds to without ever using it.
- Token-confusion reconnaissance. Before chaining a separate vulnerability (e.g., a future token-replay or session-fixation bug), the attacker can use introspection to map the token universe.
Suggested remediation
A one-line fix matching the PR #37704 pattern:
grant, err := auth.GetOAuth2GrantByID(ctx, token.GrantID)
if err == nil && grant != nil {
+ if grant.ApplicationID != app.ID {
+ // do not reveal token metadata for tokens not issued to this client
+ ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, response) // response is zero-valued, active=false
+ return
+ }
app, err := auth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByID(ctx, grant.ApplicationID)
Or, equivalently, replace the inner app reassignment with a check that uses the introspecting client's app.ClientID directly for the response claims.
Affected versions
Confirmed at Gitea v1.26.1 (latest release, 2026-04-24, docker image gitea/gitea:1.26.1). The vulnerable code path has been in place since the introspection endpoint was introduced; the recent PR #37704 / #37706 OAuth hardening landed in master May 15-16 2026 but did not touch this endpoint.
Attachments
- poc.sh: Full reproduction script.
- live_run.log: Full session log.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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-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-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 |
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