Skip to content

Gogs has an Authorization Bypass Allows Cross-Repository Label Modification in Gogs

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 14, 2026 in gogs/gogs • Updated Feb 19, 2026

Package

gomod gogs.io/gogs (Go)

Affected versions

<= 0.13.4

Patched versions

0.14.0

Description

Summary

A broken access control vulnerability in Gogs allows authenticated users with write access to any repository to modify labels belonging to other repositories. The UpdateLabel function in the Web UI (internal/route/repo/issue.go) fails to verify that the label being modified belongs to the repository specified in the URL path, enabling cross-repository label tampering attacks.

Details

The vulnerability exists in the Web UI's label update endpoint POST /:username/:reponame/labels/edit. The handler function UpdateLabel uses an incorrect database query function that bypasses repository ownership validation:

Vulnerable Code (internal/route/repo/issue.go:1040-1054):

func UpdateLabel(c *context.Context, f form.CreateLabel) {
    l, err := database.GetLabelByID(f.ID)  // ❌ No repository validation
    if err != nil {
        c.NotFoundOrError(err, "get label by ID")
        return
    }

    // ❌ Missing validation: l.RepoID != c.Repo.Repository.ID
    l.Name = f.Title
    l.Color = f.Color
    if err := database.UpdateLabel(l); err != nil {
        c.Error(err, "update label")
        return
    }
    c.RawRedirect(c.Repo.MakeURL("labels"))
}

Root Cause:

  1. The function calls database.GetLabelByID(f.ID) which internally passes repoID=0 to the ORM layer
  2. According to code comments in internal/database/issue_label.go:147-166, passing repoID=0 causes the ORM to ignore repository restrictions
  3. No validation checks whether l.RepoID == c.Repo.Repository.ID before updating
  4. The middleware reqRepoWriter() only validates write access to the repository in the URL path, not the label's actual repository

Inconsistency with Other Functions:

  • NewLabel: Correctly sets RepoID = c.Repo.Repository.ID
  • DeleteLabel: Correctly uses database.DeleteLabel(c.Repo.Repository.ID, id)
  • API EditLabel: Correctly uses database.GetLabelOfRepoByID(c.Repo.Repository.ID, id)
  • Only UpdateLabel in Web UI uses the vulnerable pattern

PoC

Prerequisites:

  • Two user accounts: Alice (attacker) and Bob (victim)
  • alice has written access to repo-a
  • Bob owns repo-b with labels

Step 1: Identify Target Label ID

  1. Login as bob, navigate to bob/repo-b/labels
  2. Open browser DevTools (F12) → Network tab
  3. Click edit on any label
  4. Observe the form data: id=<LABEL_ID>
  5. Example: id=1

Step 2: Execute Attack

# Login as alice, get session cookie
# Open DevTools → Application → Cookies → i_like_gogs
# Copy the cookie value

# Send malicious request
curl -X POST "http://localhost:3000/alice/repo-a/labels/edit" \
  -H "Cookie: i_like_gogs=<ALICE_SESSION_COOKIE>" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
  -d "id=1&title=HACKED-BY-ALICE&color=%23000000"

# Expected response: 302 Found (redirect)

Step 3: Verify Impact

  1. Login as bob
  2. Navigate to bob/repo-b/labels
  3. Observe: Label "P0-Critical" is now "HACKED-BY-ALICE" with black color

Impact

  1. Issue Classification Disruption: Modify critical labels (e.g., "P0-Critical" → "P3-Low") causing urgent issues to be deprioritized

  2. Security Issue Concealment: Change "security" labels to "documentation" to hide vulnerability reports from security teams

  3. Workflow** Sabotage**: Alter labels used in CI/CD automation, breaking deployment pipelines

  4. Mass Disruption: Batch modifies all labels across multiple repositories using ID enumeration

Recommended Fix:

func UpdateLabel(c *context.Context, f form.CreateLabel) {
    l, err := database.GetLabelOfRepoByID(c.Repo.Repository.ID, f.ID)
    if err != nil {
        c.NotFoundOrError(err, "get label of repository by ID")
        return
    }
    // Now label ownership is validated at database layer
    l.Name = f.Title
    l.Color = f.Color
    if err := database.UpdateLabel(l); err != nil {
        c.Error(err, "update label")
        return
    }
    c.RawRedirect(c.Repo.MakeURL("labels"))
}

References

@unknwon unknwon published to gogs/gogs Feb 14, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 17, 2026
Reviewed Feb 17, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 19, 2026
Last updated Feb 19, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA: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.
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-25229

GHSA ID

GHSA-cv22-72px-f4gh

Source code

Credits

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