Export limit exceeded: 409015 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (173 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-101027 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-15 | 7.7 High |
| When `[migrations] ALLOWED_DOMAINS` was configured, a hostname matching the allow list was accepted without checking its resolved address against the local-network restrictions. A user who can start repository migrations and control the DNS of an allowed hostname could make it resolve to loopback or private addresses and bypass `ALLOW_LOCALNETWORKS = false`, reaching internal services from the Gitea server. Instances without `ALLOWED_DOMAINS` configured are not affected by this specific bypass. | ||||
| CVE-2026-101029 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| Gitea's repository migration and pull mirror egress checks could be bypassed with a hostname that returns multiple DNS answers, because the address that was validated was not necessarily the address Git later connected to. A low-privileged user who can create migrations or mirrors could direct the server to internal services, reading from and writing to reachable internal Git or HTTP endpoints. Content from internal responses could additionally be disclosed through migration and mirror error messages. | ||||
| CVE-2026-103059 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-15 | 9.1 Critical |
| When Gitea's built-in SSH server is enabled (`START_SSH_SERVER = true`), the presented public key was looked up with an SQL `LIKE` comparison of its encoded content, which is case-insensitive on some databases, including the default SQLite. An attacker who can construct a case variant of another user's registered RSA public key for which they can derive the private key could have that key matched to the victim's account and authenticate over SSH as that user. Keys are now looked up by fingerprint. | ||||
| CVE-2026-103667 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-15 | 5.4 Medium |
| Gitea's container registry served blob downloads with a `Content-Type` taken from the media type declared in pushed image manifests, without a `Content-Disposition` or restrictive content security policy. A user who can push container images can publish a blob containing HTML and JavaScript with a `text/html` media type. When a victim who is authenticated to the instance opens the blob URL in a browser, the script runs on the Gitea origin and can perform actions as the victim, such as creating API tokens. | ||||
| CVE-2026-103670 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-15 | 7.5 High |
| When a Gitea Actions run was inserted, older runs in the same workflow-level concurrency group were cancelled without checking whether the new run still needed approval. Because fork pull request runs are inserted under the base repository, a user who can open a pull request from a fork could cancel trusted in-progress runs that share a concurrency group with `cancel-in-progress` enabled, without approval and without running any code. On self-hosted runners this can interrupt deployments and leave partial state behind. | ||||
| CVE-2026-86684 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 7.1 High |
| The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process. | ||||
| CVE-2026-89182 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 5.4 Medium |
| With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-96594 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 6.1 Medium |
| The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97208 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 4.9 Medium |
| The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104626 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 8.8 High |
| A user who can open a fork pull request can place workflow content with a shared run-level concurrency group into a Gitea Actions run that is awaiting approval. When a later run in that group cancels the blocked job, the run becomes terminal while still marked as needing approval. If a maintainer later approves the run, Gitea passed the already-cancelled job back through concurrency preparation, set it to waiting, and made it claimable by a matching runner, executing fork-controlled workflow code. Exploitation requires the maintainer's later approval action, Actions to be enabled, and a runner that accepts the repository's jobs. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104632 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 8.8 High |
| Gitea Actions blocks the jobs of workflow runs from first-time fork pull request contributors until a maintainer approves the run. The rerun path only required a run to be finished and built the new attempt's jobs without considering the pending approval, so when a user with Actions write access cancelled a run that was awaiting approval and then re-ran it, the new jobs were created as waiting rather than blocked while the run still recorded that approval was required. Cancelling and re-running stale fork checks is a routine action that does not involve the approval control, so where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, workflow code taken from the fork pull request head could run on the repository's runners without an explicit approval. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104636 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 7.5 High |
| Gitea validated the initial remote URL for push mirrors, wiki remote checks, and fetches of migrated pull request heads, but the subsequent raw Git operations followed HTTP redirects without revalidating the destination. A repository administrator using a policy-allowed endpoint that redirects could make Gitea's Git client send requests to an address that the outbound host policy would otherwise block. The impact depends on the configured policy and the internal services reachable from the server. | ||||
| CVE-2026-70357 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 7.5 High |
| Gitea validates a repository migration hostname against its network allow and block lists before invoking Git, but the Git subprocess independently resolves the hostname when connecting. An attacker who can start a migration and control the destination's DNS can change the address between validation and connection to reach a blocked internal address. The affected path is the Git clone operation; validation in the migration HTTP client's dialer does not protect the independently connecting Git subprocess. | ||||
| CVE-2026-73278 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 9.8 Critical |
| Gitea's OAuth2 and OpenID Connect sign-in paths do not require a WebAuthn challenge when WebAuthn is the account's only configured second factor. A party able to authenticate through the affected external identity flow can obtain a full session without the passkey verification enforced during password login. One affected path can also persist an external identity link, extending the compromise beyond the initial session; accounts with TOTP configured are outside the reported WebAuthn-only scenario. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79960 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 7.1 High |
| When a push was authenticated with a deploy key, Gitea recorded the repository owner as the pusher, so permission checks in the push hook pipeline evaluated the owner instead of the deploy key. A holder of a writable deploy key could create protected tags without being on the tag allow list and change repository visibility through push options, for example making a private repository public. Pull requests created through the AGit flow with a deploy key were also attributed to the owner. | ||||
| CVE-2026-89430 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 8.1 High |
| Gitea validated a push mirror's remote address against the `[migrations]` allow and block lists only when the mirror was created. Each synchronization passed the stored address directly to `git push`, so a name that later resolved to a blocked or internal address was still reached. A user with administrator access to a repository, which includes repositories they create themselves, could aim push mirror synchronization at internal Git services and force-push the repository's contents to them. | ||||
| CVE-2026-94205 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 9.8 Critical |
| Gitea Actions decided whether a fork pull request run needed approval based on the user who triggered the event rather than the pull request author. For `pull_request` activity triggered by a maintainer during ordinary triage, such as adding a label, the run was created without requiring approval, while the workflow definition was still taken from the fork head. Where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, fork-controlled workflow code could run on the base repository's runners without an explicit approval. | ||||
| CVE-2026-95106 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 9.1 Critical |
| Gitea accepted pushed Git trees containing two entries with the same name, which Git's own consistency checks reject. Gitea's web views resolved such a path to the first entry, while `git checkout`, Gitea Actions, and release archives use the last. A contributor could open a pull request whose diff and file views show benign content while CI and checkouts at the same commit use different, attacker-controlled content. Incoming objects are now checked for consistency; objects already stored in existing repositories are not rescanned. | ||||
| CVE-2026-95112 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 6.5 Medium |
| When processing issue and comment bodies, Gitea scanned the entire preceding text for action keywords such as "closes" or "fixes" once per Markdown link, giving processing time quadratic in the input size. An authenticated user able to submit issue or comment content could send a crafted body of about 1 MB that keeps a CPU core busy for several minutes while holding a database transaction open. | ||||
| CVE-2026-96399 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-13 | 7.5 High |
| A repository's external issue tracker regular expression containing alternating capture groups could produce invalid slice indexes when Gitea rendered issue references, causing a runtime panic that terminated the Gitea process. A user who can edit a repository's external issue tracker settings could make any later rendering of matching content, such as viewing a README, crash the instance for all users. | ||||