Skip to content

GHSA-xv9x-fj9g-vj6h CVE-2026-58438 GO-2026-6085

Gitea: Cross-repository IDOR in issue-dependency removal lets an attacker tamper with and comment on private repos they cannot access

High Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.47%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 40.36% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
1.27.0
Upgrade gitea.dev to this version or later

Description

Details

RemoveDependency in routers/web/repo/issue_dependency.go takes a removeDependencyID form parameter identifying the other issue by its global numeric ID, and fetches it with issues_model.GetIssueByID(ctx, depID) - no repository or permission check at all. It then calls issues_model.RemoveIssueDependency(ctx, ctx.Doer, issue, dep, depType) (models/issues/dependency.go), which deletes the dependency join row and then writes a comment referencing the removal, attributed to the calling user, onto the dependency record.

The sibling function in the very same file, AddDependency, does this correctly when the two issues are in different repos (which ALLOW_CROSS_REPOSITORY_DEPENDENCIES, on by default, permits):

if issue.RepoID != dep.RepoID {
  if !setting.Service.AllowCrossRepositoryDependencies { ... }
  depRepoPerm, err := access_model.GetDoerRepoPermission(ctx, dep.Repo, ctx.Doer)
  if !depRepoPerm.CanReadIssuesOrPulls(dep.IsPull) {
    return // you can't see this dependency
  }
}

RemoveDependency has no equivalent block at all - it goes straight from resolving dep by ID to deleting the link, regardless of which repo dep lives in or whether the caller can see it. I confirmed this same code is present in the current latest release, v1.26.4.

PoC

Prerequisites: an account with write access to issues on some repo ownerA/repoA, and the global numeric issue ID of an issue in a private repo repoB that is (or was) legitimately dependency-linked to one of the attacker's issues in repoA (cross-repo dependencies are commonly used between related public/private repos, and ALLOW_CROSS_REPOSITORY_DEPENDENCIES defaults to enabled).

curl -s -b "gitea_session=$ATTACKER_SESSION_COOKIE" -X POST \
  --data-urlencode "removeDependencyID=<repoB_issue_global_id>" \
  --data-urlencode "dependencyType=blockedBy" \
  "https://TARGET_HOST/ownerA/repoA/issues/N/dependency/delete"
# Expected: the dependency link is deleted and a "removed dependency" comment
# authored by the attacker is added to the repoB issue, even though the
# attacker has no read access to repoB.

Impact

This is a cross-repository IDOR / broken access control issue. An attacker can tamper with issue-tracking state (dependency relationships) and inject an attacker-authored comment into a private repository they cannot otherwise read or write to, crossing a trust boundary the "add" path explicitly enforces. Impact is bounded - it requires an existing dependency link and discloses no repository content - but it is a genuine unauthorized-write primitive across a private-repo boundary.

Fix

Add the same cross-repo permission check used in AddDependency (access_model.GetDoerRepoPermission(ctx, dep.Repo, ctx.Doer).CanReadIssuesOrPulls(dep.IsPull)) to RemoveDependency before allowing the deletion to proceed when issue.RepoID != dep.RepoID.

If possible, please apply for a CVE number when publishing. I would greatly appreciate it.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
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.

gitea.dev Go → 1.27.0

go
go get gitea.dev@v1.27.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
Low
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

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-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 gitea.dev
GHSA-fq2p-5p22-8g6j
Gitea: Public-Only Personal access tokens scope bypass in Organization and Permission Endpoints
Medium Also affects gitea.dev
GHSA-2wm4-vwp6-v7xc
Gitea: SSRF via Migration Asset Downloads Bypasses hostmatcher — Reads Internal Files and Cloud Metadata
High Also affects gitea.dev
GHSA-3r5c-2xxx-h872
Gitea: Webhook Authorization Header Returned in Plaintext via API
Low Also affects gitea.dev
GHSA-frpw-3h2q-4jj6
Gitea: Cross-Repo Information Disclosure via Org-Level Actions Run/Job APIs
Medium Also affects gitea.dev
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 gitea.dev
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
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