VulnerabilityPublished 21 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-58431: Gitea · Public-only API token restriction is not enforced on team API routes

Affects gitea.devSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-58431· Medium 4.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.27.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% 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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 202617:24 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 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

### Summary Gitea's `/api/v1/teams/{id}` API routes do not correctly enforce the `public-only` access token restriction. A `public-only` token is intended to limit API access to public repositories and public organizations. However, several team API routes continue to return private team repository metadata and private team activity feed entries when called with a `public-only` token. ### Details The `/api/v1/teams/{teamid}` route group uses: ```go orgAssignment(false, true) ``` This loads `ctx.Org.Team`, but does not load `ctx.Org.Organization`. The `checkTokenPublicOnly` middleware checks organization visibility through `ctx.Org.Organization`. When `ctx.Org.Organization` is nil, the organization visibility check silently passes. In addition, the team repository handlers return repositories without applying repository-level `public-only` filtering: ```go repo_model.GetTeamRepositories(...) convert.ToRepo(...) ``` They do not call: ```go ctx.TokenCanAccessRepo(repo) ``` The team activity feed handler also sets: ```go IncludePrivate: true ``` but does not apply: ```go opts.ApplyPublicOnly(ctx.PublicOnly) ``` ### PoC Vulnerability is verified on latest gitea release (1.26.2) and nightly build. Frist, create a `public-only` organization-scoped token for a user who is a member of a team in a private org with private repositories: <img width="1075" height="577" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4a01d0ab-f67c-47c9-94b1-e74ddd77d7bc" /> <img width="649" height="375" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b5d91962-088e-40f4-bc51-88a17946e6d8" /> Use the returned token to request team repositories: <img width="1728" height="190" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0f15878f-5806-431d-958c-ffb39bf7c1e9" /> Expected result: Private repositories should be hidden or rejected for a public-only token. Actual result: Private team repository metadata is returned. The team activity feed endpoint can be tested similarly: <img width="1728" height="237" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/280a5ddf-ad14-4769-86a8-1fdad858287c" /> ### Impact A `public-only` token can access private team resources that should be hidden from that token.

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

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats