CVE-2026-58438VulnerabilityPublished 21 Jul 2026

gitea.dev · Gitea: Cross-repository IDOR

Affects gitea.devSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-58438· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 1.27.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.27.0

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

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

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).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CISA SSVC: proof of concept public
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

CVE ID reserved
by Gitea Limited
30 Jun 202618:57 UTC, 44 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
13 Aug 202616:44 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
14 Aug 202620:02 UTC, 27 hours after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA SSVC, 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 gitea.dev to 1.27.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogitea.dev	Affected <1.27.0	Fixed in 1.27.0

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

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): ```go 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). ```bash 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.**

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats