VulnerabilityPublished 1 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-118386: Gitea · Incorrect Authorization

Affects GiteaSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 28.3.0 soon.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 11:17 UTC

Severity

High

Rated High by Threat Radar's AI analysis · CVSS not yet scored by NVD

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

Patch: Available – fixed in 28.3.0

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 1 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 Gitea to 28.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Giteagitea.dev	Affected >=1.19.0 <28.3.0	Fixed in 28.3.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Gitea to version 28.3.0 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. No other mitigation is indicated or required according to the available data.

Description

CVE-2026-118386 is an incorrect authorization vulnerability in Gitea affecting versions from 1.19.0 up to but not including 28.3.0. It allows a user with read access to a repository to trigger workflows with elevated privileges by submitting a pull request review referencing a commit they control, bypassing fork restrictions. This leads to unauthorized execution of workflows with access to repository secrets and a token granting write access. The issue is fixed in Gitea version 28.3.0.

Impact

An attacker with read access to a repository can execute unauthorized workflows with access to sensitive repository secrets and a token that grants write access to the repository. This could lead to unauthorized code execution, secret leakage, and repository compromise.

Summary

The vulnerability arises because workflows triggered by pull request reviews were executed based on the commit referenced in the review's commit_id without verifying that the commit belongs to the pull request. An attacker with read access can insert a commit into the repository via a fork pull request or AGit push, then submit a review naming that commit on a pull request whose head branch is in the same repository. On instances with a runner serving the repository, this causes the attacker's workflow to run without approval, exposing repository Actions secrets and a GITEA_TOKEN with write permissions. The fix ensures review-triggered workflows run only on the pull request head.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
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) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
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.
Architecture and Design · 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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 1 Nov 2026, 10:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats