VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jul 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-39933: gogs · Argument Injection

Affects gogsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High : upgrade to 0.13.1 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.13.1

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

Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Vector: Network
Availability: None
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Privileges Required: Low
Scope: Changed
User Interaction: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Jul 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade gogs/gogs to 0.13.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgogs/gogs`pkg:github/gogs/gogs`Other threats	Affected <0.13.1	Fixed in 0.13.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Restrict access to Gogs instances to trusted users only, using network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure.
Implement strict authentication and authorization controls to ensure only authorized personnel can perform tagging operations.
Monitor logs for unusual tagging activity or unexpected argument patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Temporarily disable or restrict the ability to create new tags/releases if feasible until a patch is available.
Regularly update Gogs to the latest version once an official patch addressing CVE-2024-39933 is released.
Employ application-layer firewalls or intrusion detection systems capable of detecting command or argument injection patterns.
Educate developers and administrators about the risks of argument injection and safe usage practices within Gogs.
Review and sanitize all inputs related to tagging operations in custom integrations or automation scripts to prevent injection vectors.

Description

Gogs through 0.13.0 allows argument injection during the tagging of a new release.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-39933 is on the confidentiality of data managed by Gogs instances. Attackers exploiting this vulnerability can inject arguments during tagging operations, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive information such as source code, credentials, or internal configuration details. This can compromise intellectual property and expose organizations to further attacks or data leaks. Given that Gogs is often used in software development pipelines, a successful attack could undermine the integrity of the software supply chain indirectly by exposing sensitive data or enabling further exploitation. The vulnerability does not affect availability or integrity directly, but the confidentiality breach alone can have severe consequences, including reputational damage, regulatory penalties, and loss of competitive advantage. Organizations with publicly accessible or poorly secured Gogs instances are at higher risk. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not diminish the urgency for remediation.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 04:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats