VulnerabilityPublished 21 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-54481: Gitea · Internal API HTTP client hardcodes InsecureSkipVerify:true with no config override

Affects code.gitea.io/giteaSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-54481· High 7.5

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

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.27.0

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

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
Weaponized: 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
8 Jul 202609:19 UTC, 36 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
13 Aug 202616:44 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
14 Aug 202617:44 UTC, 25 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 30 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.
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 code.gitea.io/gitea to 1.27.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gocode.gitea.io/gitea	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

Summary Gitea's internal API HTTP client (modules/private/internal.go) hardcodes TLSClientConfig.InsecureSkipVerify = true with no configuration override. It is the only outbound TLS client in the codebase that cannot be made to verify its peer's certificate — webhook, migrations, MinIO, LDAP, SMTP, Redis and incoming-mail all expose a secure-by-default SkipVerify toggle, this one does not. When an operator configures internal communication over HTTPS to a non-loopback target (LOCAL_ROOT_URL=https://<host>/ in a split-host / multi-pod topology), the gitea serv / gitea hook subprocess that calls the internal API will accept ANY TLS certificate. An attacker with on-path position on that internal segment can MITM the connection and capture the static high-privilege INTERNAL_TOKEN, which is the sole authentication for every /api/internal/* endpoint (server shutdown/restart, SSH key authorization, git command execution, repo hooks, mail send, runner-token generation). Severity is deployment-dependent: High for split-host HTTPS deployments; Low/Informational for the default single-host / unix-socket / HTTP-loopback deployment, where the call is loopback and not interceptable without local access (which already exposes the token directly). This report is rated for the affected configuration and the underlying defense-in-depth defect. Details Affected component: modules/private/internal.go The internal API transport hardcodes certificate-verification bypass: var internalAPITransport = sync.OnceValue(func() http.RoundTripper { return &http.Transport{ DialContext: dialContextInternalAPI, TLSClientConfig: &tls.Config{ InsecureSkipVerify: true, // hardcoded, no config gate ServerName: setting.Domain, // SNI only; NOT used for validation while skip=true }, } }) Because InsecureSkipVerify is true, ServerName is used only for SNI and any certificate (any CN, self-signed) is accepted; there is no accidental safety net. Verified exploit chain (read against main @ aab9737651, 2026-06-13): 1. TLS path is reached whenever LOCAL_ROOT_URL scheme is https — http.Transport applies TLSClientConfig only for https requests. (modules/private/internal.go:56-64) 2. The dialer connects to the real host from the URL, with no loopback pinning: dialContextInternalAPI -> d.DialContext(ctx, network, address), where address is the host:port from LOCAL_ROOT_URL. (modules/private/internal.go:37-54) 3. The client runs as a SEPARATE process, so a real socket is used and can cross hosts: - Built-in and external SSH both exec "gitea serv key-N" (modules/ssh/ssh.go:109,123; models/asymkey/ssh_key_authorized_keys.go via authorized_keys command=). - Git hooks exec "gitea hook ...". These subprocesses call back to LOCAL_ROOT_URL. Same host => loopback; split host => network hop. 4. INTERNAL_TOKEN is sent on every internal request as a static bearer header: Header("X-Gitea-Internal-Auth", "Bearer "+setting.InternalToken) (modules/private/internal.go:80) 5. A captured token is accepted and is the SOLE gate for all internal routes: authInternal() does subtle.ConstantTimeCompare(header, setting.InternalToken) and nothing else. (routers/private/internal.go:24-42). The server code even comments: "// TODO: use something like JWT or HMAC to avoid passing the token in the clear" (routers/private/internal.go:32) 6. Amplifier: internal routes are mounted on the main public listener, not a loopback-only socket: r.Mount("/api/internal", private.Routes()) (routers/init.go:185) so a stolen token is replayable by anyone who can reach the Gitea HTTP port. Inconsistency / root cause: every other outbound TLS client is configurable and secure-by-default (services/webhook/deliver.go Webhook.SkipTLSVerify; services/migrations/http_client.go Migrations.SkipTLSVerify; modules/storage/minio.go MINIO_INSECURE_SKIP_VERIFY; LDAP/SMTP SkipVerify; incoming-mail SkipTLSVerify). The internal API client alone is hardcoded insecure with no opt-out. The InsecureSkipVerify line has been present since 2017 (#1471), so all releases are affected. PoC Goal: capture the live INTERNAL_TOKEN from a real Gitea subprocess call and replay it. Note: a self-contained TLS test (e.g. Python ssl.CERT_NONE accepting a self-signed cert) only restates the flag's definition and does NOT involve Gitea. The steps below exercise the real path. 1. Configure Gitea so the internal client uses HTTPS to an interceptable target: [server] PROTOCOL = https LOCAL_ROOT_URL = https://127.0.0.1:8443/ 2. Run a rogue TLS listener on 127.0.0.1:8443 presenting ANY self-signed certificate, logging the X-Gitea-Internal-Auth request header. Minimal handler: # python3 rogue.py import http.server, ssl, subprocess subprocess.run(["openssl","req","-x509","-newkey","rsa:2048","-keyout","k.pem","-out","c.pem",

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats