| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| When processing issue and comment bodies, Gitea scanned the entire preceding text for action keywords such as "closes" or "fixes" once per Markdown link, giving processing time quadratic in the input size. An authenticated user able to submit issue or comment content could send a crafted body of about 1 MB that keeps a CPU core busy for several minutes while holding a database transaction open. |
| Gitea Actions blocks the jobs of workflow runs from first-time fork pull request contributors until a maintainer approves the run. The rerun path only required a run to be finished and built the new attempt's jobs without considering the pending approval, so when a user with Actions write access cancelled a run that was awaiting approval and then re-ran it, the new jobs were created as waiting rather than blocked while the run still recorded that approval was required. Cancelling and re-running stale fork checks is a routine action that does not involve the approval control, so where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, workflow code taken from the fork pull request head could run on the repository's runners without an explicit approval. |
| Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included. |
| The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule. |
| Gitea expanded a workflow's static `strategy.matrix` into its full Cartesian product without a size limit when creating a run, before the fork pull request approval gate applied. A user who can open a pull request from a fork could submit a small workflow file whose matrix expands to a very large number of jobs, consuming server memory and potentially terminating the Gitea process. No runner is required. Static matrices above 256 combinations are now rejected before expansion. |
| A repository's external issue tracker regular expression containing alternating capture groups could produce invalid slice indexes when Gitea rendered issue references, causing a runtime panic that terminated the Gitea process. A user who can edit a repository's external issue tracker settings could make any later rendering of matching content, such as viewing a README, crash the instance for all users. |
| Gitea accepted pushed Git trees containing two entries with the same name, which Git's own consistency checks reject. Gitea's web views resolved such a path to the first entry, while `git checkout`, Gitea Actions, and release archives use the last. A contributor could open a pull request whose diff and file views show benign content while CI and checkouts at the same commit use different, attacker-controlled content. Incoming objects are now checked for consistency; objects already stored in existing repositories are not rescanned. |
| Gitea Actions decided whether a fork pull request run needed approval based on the user who triggered the event rather than the pull request author. For `pull_request` activity triggered by a maintainer during ordinary triage, such as adding a label, the run was created without requiring approval, while the workflow definition was still taken from the fork head. Where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, fork-controlled workflow code could run on the base repository's runners without an explicit approval. |
| Gitea validated a push mirror's remote address against the `[migrations]` allow and block lists only when the mirror was created. Each synchronization passed the stored address directly to `git push`, so a name that later resolved to a blocked or internal address was still reached. A user with administrator access to a repository, which includes repositories they create themselves, could aim push mirror synchronization at internal Git services and force-push the repository's contents to them. |
| The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process. |
| Gitea's OAuth2 and OpenID Connect sign-in paths do not require a WebAuthn challenge when WebAuthn is the account's only configured second factor. A party able to authenticate through the affected external identity flow can obtain a full session without the passkey verification enforced during password login. One affected path can also persist an external identity link, extending the compromise beyond the initial session; accounts with TOTP configured are outside the reported WebAuthn-only scenario. |
| Gitea validates a repository migration hostname against its network allow and block lists before invoking Git, but the Git subprocess independently resolves the hostname when connecting. An attacker who can start a migration and control the destination's DNS can change the address between validation and connection to reach a blocked internal address. The affected path is the Git clone operation; validation in the migration HTTP client's dialer does not protect the independently connecting Git subprocess. |
| The Gitea web route for deleting tags (`POST /{owner}/{repo}/tags/delete`) requires only write access to the Code unit, but shares its handler with release deletion and did not check that the target was a plain tag. A collaborator with Code write access and without Releases write access could permanently delete published releases of that repository, including their attachments. Protected tag rules covering the release tag still blocked the deletion. |
| Gitea validated the initial remote URL for push mirrors, wiki remote checks, and fetches of migrated pull request heads, but the subsequent raw Git operations followed HTTP redirects without revalidating the destination. A repository administrator using a policy-allowed endpoint that redirects could make Gitea's Git client send requests to an address that the outbound host policy would otherwise block. The impact depends on the configured policy and the internal services reachable from the server. |
| A user who can open a fork pull request can place workflow content with a shared run-level concurrency group into a Gitea Actions run that is awaiting approval. When a later run in that group cancels the blocked job, the run becomes terminal while still marked as needing approval. If a maintainer later approves the run, Gitea passed the already-cancelled job back through concurrency preparation, set it to waiting, and made it claimable by a matching runner, executing fork-controlled workflow code. Exploitation requires the maintainer's later approval action, Actions to be enabled, and a runner that accepts the repository's jobs. |
| Gitea's container registry served blob downloads with a `Content-Type` taken from the media type declared in pushed image manifests, without a `Content-Disposition` or restrictive content security policy. A user who can push container images can publish a blob containing HTML and JavaScript with a `text/html` media type. When a victim who is authenticated to the instance opens the blob URL in a browser, the script runs on the Gitea origin and can perform actions as the victim, such as creating API tokens. |
| Changing an organization team's permission through the API with only the `permission` field did not rebuild the team's per-unit access, and the requested level was not applied as a cap. After an organization owner demoted a team, for example from admin to read, the team's members kept their previous unit permissions, including write access to the team's repositories. The web form was not affected. |
| Gitea's repository migration and pull mirror egress checks could be bypassed with a hostname that returns multiple DNS answers, because the address that was validated was not necessarily the address Git later connected to. A low-privileged user who can create migrations or mirrors could direct the server to internal services, reading from and writing to reachable internal Git or HTTP endpoints. Content from internal responses could additionally be disclosed through migration and mirror error messages. |
| Gitea's OAuth2 token endpoint verified the signature and grant of a token submitted with the `refresh_token` grant type, but not that the token was a refresh token. An unexpired access token for the same OAuth2 application and grant could be exchanged for a new access token and refresh token. Whoever holds such an access token could keep access beyond the token's original lifetime. |
| When migrating a repository from another Gitea instance, Gitea used the page size reported in the source server's API settings to end its paginated downloads. A source that reported `max_response_items` as `0` made these loops run indefinitely and grow server memory until it was exhausted. Any user who can migrate repositories could point a migration at a server they control and cause a denial of service. |
