CVE-2026-22874

criticalPriorität · verfolgen · 10EPSS 0.005 · 40. PerzentilExploit · PoCDEEURUUS
grimoire priorityP1 · Urgent
Exploitable?
Public exploit
2 exploits · PoC
Likely / severe?
0.46% (40th) EPSS
CVSS 9.6 · critical
Is it mine?
8 products
Prüfe deine Angriffsfläche
Who says so?
5 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · fstec_bdu · osv

EPSS · bewertet 2026-10-27

Gitea versions up to and including 1.26.2 have incomplete SSRF protection in webhook and migration allow-list filtering.

01

cvss

Technischer Schweregrad, 0–10. Eine Zeile je Quelle.

9.6
010

Basiswert 0–10 · höher = schwerwiegender · Vektor überfahren zum Auflösen

v3.19.6criticalAV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:Nsecondary · FSTEC (BDU) RU
v3.19.6criticalCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.19.6criticalCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NsecondaryAusnutzbarkeit 3.1 · Auswirkung 5.8
v3.19.6criticalCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.19.1criticalCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N/E:Psecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

SSVC

Eine Handlungsentscheidung — aus Ausnutzung und Auswirkung.

Exploitation: poc · Automatable: no · Technical Impact: totalcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

schwächen

Die CWE-Schwächeklassen, zu denen dies gehört.

04

Exploits (2)

Öffentlicher Proof-of-Concept- und Exploit-Code.

05

betroffene Produkte (8)

Betroffene Produkte und Versionsbereiche.

06

Advisories (3)

Hersteller- und Ökosystem-Meldungen dazu.

  • WID-SEC-W-2026-2027Gitea: Mehrere SchwachstellenDeutsch2026-06-21csaf · cert_bundDE

    Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Gitea ausnutzen, um erweiterte Berechtigungen zu erlangen, sich als Benutzer auszugeben, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren und vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen.

  • GHSA-2r5c-gw76-rh3wGitea: Incomplete SSRF Protection in Webhook and Migration Allow-list Default Filter2026-07-21ghsa · osvUS

    ## Summary Gitea's default SSRF allow-list ([`MatchBuiltinExternal`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher.go#L26-L27), used by both webhook delivery and repository migrations) relies on Go's standard library [`net.IP.IsPrivate()`](https://pkg.go.dev/net#IP.IsPrivate), which only covers RFC 1918 and RFC 4193. As a result, several IP ranges commonly used for cloud metadata services, internal networks, and IPv6 transition mechanisms are not blocked, allowing authenticated users to send HTTP requests to those destinations and read the responses via the webhook history UI. ## Details The vulnerability lives in [`HostMatchList.checkIP`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher.go#L96-L114), specifically [line 103](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher.go#L103): ```go case MatchBuiltinExternal: if ip.IsGlobalUnicast() && !ip.IsPrivate() { return true } ``` `net.IP.IsPrivate()` recognises only: - `10.0.0.0/8`, `172.16.0.0/12`, `192.168.0.0/16` (RFC 1918) - `fc00::/7` (RFC 4193 IPv6 ULA) It does **not** recognise: | Range | Description | |---|---| | `100.64.0.0/10` | RFC 6598 Carrier-Grade NAT | | `168.63.129.16/32` | Azure WireServer metadata endpoint | | `172.32.0.0/11` | Non-RFC1918 portion of `172.0.0.0/8` (real-world internal use) | | `64:ff9b::/96` | RFC 6052 IPv6 NAT64 (can embed `169.254.169.254`) | | `2001::/32` | RFC 4380 Teredo tunneling | | `2002::/16` | RFC 3056 6to4 | | `2001:db8::/32` | RFC 3849 documentation | The default is reached by webhook delivery at [`services/webhook/deliver.go#L312-L316`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/services/webhook/deliver.go#L312-L316) and by repository migrations at [`services/migrations/migrate.go#L522`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/services/migrations/migrate.go#L522). The SSRF is **not blind**. Webhook delivery captures the response status, headers, and up to 1 MiB of body ([`services/webhook/deliver.go#L259-L270`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/services/webhook/deliver.go#L259-L270)) and renders them in the webhook history UI ([`templates/repo/settings/webhook/history.tmpl#L75-L85`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/templates/repo/settings/webhook/history.tmpl#L75-L85)), so attackers can read everything the targeted internal service returns. ## Impact An authenticated user who can create or modify a webhook can: - Reach cloud metadata endpoints (AWS IMDS via NAT64 `64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe`, Azure WireServer `168.63.129.16`) - Probe and exfiltrate from internal services on CGNAT (`100.64.0.0/10`) or non-RFC1918 172.x ranges - Read full HTTP response bodies through the webhook history UI The same default is applied to repository migrations, broadening the attack surface to users who can trigger a migration. ## Proof of Concept The attached patch ([`gitea_ssrf_test.patch`](#patch)) adds [`TestSSRFBypassRanges`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go) to the existing test file. It uses [Go subtests](https://go.dev/blog/subtests) so each vulnerable range is its own named failing test case. Run with: ``` go test -v ./modules/hostmatcher -run TestSSRFBypassRanges ``` Expected result on `4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830`: - **8 PASS** — RFC 1918, IPv6 private ranges, and legitimate public IPs (control cases) - **10 FAIL** — Each failing subtest is a documented SSRF bypass Sample failure output: ``` --- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/CGNAT_100.64.0.0/10_(RFC_6598) Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true Messages: ip=100.64.0.1 --- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/Azure_WireServer_168.63.129.16 Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true Messages: ip=168.63.129.16 --- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/IPv6_NAT64_embedded_AWS_IMDS_169.254.169.254 Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true Messages: ip=64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe ``` ## Suggested Remediation I'd suggest treating the design of [`MatchBuiltinExternal`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher.go#L96-L114) as the bug — `IsPrivate()` is too narrow a definition of "internal." A comprehensive deny-list approach is what's needed here. For reference, CC-Tweaked's [`AddressPredicate.PrivatePattern`](https://github.com/cc-tweaked/CC-Tweaked/blob/3e7ce15ba6d5ab030092850f7e49829b64ba3555/projects/core/src/main/java/dan200/computercraft/core/apis/http/options/AddressPredicate.java#L116-L169) is a good reference list, blocking each of the ranges named in the table above plus a few others (multicast, broadcast, TEST-NET, etc.). The exact remediation is at your discretion. ## References - Vulnerable function: [`modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher.go#L96-L114`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher.go#L96-L114) - Default for webhooks: [`services/webhook/deliver.go#L312-L316`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/services/webhook/deliver.go#L312-L316) - Default for migrations: [`services/migrations/migrate.go#L522`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/services/migrations/migrate.go#L522) - Response captured: [`services/webhook/deliver.go#L259-L270`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/services/webhook/deliver.go#L259-L270) - Response rendered: [`templates/repo/settings/webhook/history.tmpl#L75-L85`](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830/templates/repo/settings/webhook/history.tmpl#L75-L85) - Go stdlib `net.IP.IsPrivate()`: <https://pkg.go.dev/net#IP.IsPrivate> - CC-Tweaked reference deny-list: [`AddressPredicate.java#L116-L169`](https://github.com/cc-tweaked/CC-Tweaked/blob/3e7ce15ba6d5ab030092850f7e49829b64ba3555/projects/core/src/main/java/dan200/computercraft/core/apis/http/options/AddressPredicate.java#L116-L169) - Go subtests pattern: <https://go.dev/blog/subtests> - RFC 6598 (CGNAT), RFC 6052 (NAT64), RFC 4380 (Teredo), RFC 3056 (6to4), RFC 3849 (documentation) --- ## Patch <a name="patch"></a> Proposed `gitea_ssrf_test.patch`: ```diff diff --git a/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go b/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go index c781847..0b39e60 100644 --- a/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go +++ b/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go @@ -159,3 +159,56 @@ func TestHostOrIPMatchesList(t *testing.T) { } test(cases) } + +// TestSSRFBypassRanges verifies that the "external" filter (the default used by +// webhook delivery and repository migrations) blocks dangerous IP ranges. +// +// Each subtest's `allowed` field is the expected return value of MatchHostOrIP: +// - false: the IP should be blocked (rejected by the filter) +// - true: the IP should be allowed (a legitimate public destination) +// +// Subtests that FAIL are documented SSRF bypasses: IP ranges that should be +// blocked but are incorrectly allowed because the underlying check relies on +// net.IP.IsPrivate(), which only covers RFC 1918 and RFC 4193. +func TestSSRFBypassRanges(t *testing.T) { + type tc struct { + ip net.IP + allowed bool + } + + hl := ParseHostMatchList("", "external") + + cases := map[string]tc{ + // RFC 1918 / IPv6 private ranges - correctly blocked + "RFC1918 10.0.0.0/8": {net.ParseIP("10.0.0.1"), false}, + "RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12": {net.ParseIP("172.16.0.1"), false}, + "RFC1918 192.168.0.0/16": {net.ParseIP("192.168.1.1"), false}, + "IPv6 loopback ::1": {net.ParseIP("::1"), false}, + "IPv6 link-local fe80::/10": {net.ParseIP("fe80::1"), false}, + "IPv6 ULA fd00::/8": {net.ParseIP("fd00::1"), false}, + + // Legitimate public IPs - correctly allowed + "Public IPv4 (Google DNS)": {net.ParseIP("8.8.8.8"), true}, + "Public IPv6 (Google DNS)": {net.ParseIP("2001:4860:4860::8888"), true}, + + // SSRF bypasses - the assertions below intentionally describe the + // expected secure behavior (allowed=false). Each failing subtest is + // a documented bypass. + "CGNAT 100.64.0.0/10 (RFC 6598)": {net.ParseIP("100.64.0.1"), false}, + "CGNAT 100.127.255.254 (RFC 6598)": {net.ParseIP("100.127.255.254"), false}, + "Azure WireServer 168.63.129.16": {net.ParseIP("168.63.129.16"), false}, + "Non-RFC1918 172.32.0.0/11": {net.ParseIP("172.32.0.1"), false}, + "Non-RFC1918 172.45.0.0/16": {net.ParseIP("172.45.0.1"), false}, + "IPv6 NAT64 64:ff9b::/96 (RFC 6052)": {net.ParseIP("64:ff9b::1"), false}, + "IPv6 NAT64 embedded AWS IMDS 169.254.169.254": {net.ParseIP("64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe"), false}, + "IPv6 Teredo 2001::/32 (RFC 4380)": {net.ParseIP("2001::1"), false}, + "IPv6 6to4 2002::/16 (RFC 3056)": {net.ParseIP("2002::1"), false}, + "IPv6 documentation 2001:db8::/32 (RFC 3849)": {net.ParseIP("2001:db8::1"), false}, + } + + for name, c := range cases { + t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T) { + assert.Equalf(t, c.allowed, hl.MatchHostOrIP("", c.ip), "ip=%v", c.ip) + }) + } +} ``` ## Credit This vulnerability was uncovered by @JLLeitschuh of the @braze-inc security team.

  • GO-2026-6030Gitea: Incomplete SSRF Protection in Webhook and Migration Allow-list Default Filter in code.gitea.io/gitea2026-07-22vendor · osvUS

    Gitea: Incomplete SSRF Protection in Webhook and Migration Allow-list Default Filter in code.gitea.io/gitea

07

auch bekannt als (6)

Weitere Namen und Kennungen dieser Entität.

08

quellen

Welche Quellen diesen Datensatz belegen und wann.

veröffentlicht 2026-07-03geändert 2026-10-25
09

Referenzen (16)

Externe Belege — Patches, Meldungen, Analysen.

scry

Angreifer nutzen Schwachstellen wie diese gegen im Internet exponierte Dienste aus. Sehen Sie mit einem kostenlosen Passiv-Scan, was exponiert ist.

Kostenloser Scan