🛡️ CVE-2026-58441 — gitea.dev
Description
Gitea: SSRF in restore-repo via unsanitized pull_request.yml Head.CloneURL
Summary
Gitea's restore-repo CLI command restores a repository from a dump
directory/archive. When parsing pull_request.yml from that dump, the
Head.CloneURL field is used to add a git remote and fetch from it with
no validation, because the safety check that's supposed to guard it
(CheckAndEnsureSafePR) is called with an empty commonCloneBaseURL,
which silently disables it. This lets a malicious dump make the Gitea
server execute git fetch against an attacker-chosen URL (SSRF), or
disclose a local git repository via file://. This is a different root
cause from the recently fixed path-traversal issue in the same command
(#38215), which patched DownloadURL/PatchURL but not Head.CloneURL.
Details
services/migrations/restore.go's GetPullRequests() unmarshals
pull_request.yml directly into base.PullRequest structs with no
validation of Head.CloneURL:
```go
err = yaml.Unmarshal(bs, &pulls)
...
for _, pr := range pulls {
if pr.PatchURL != "" {
pr.PatchURL = "file://" + util.FilePathJoinAbs(r.baseDir, pr.PatchURL)
}
CheckAndEnsureSafePR(pr, "", r) // <-- empty baseURL
}
```
CheckAndEnsureSafePR (services/migrations/common.go) is supposed to
reject Head.CloneURL/PatchURL values that don't share a common base
URL:
```go
func hasBaseURL(toCheck, baseURL string) bool {
if len(baseURL) > 0 && baseURL[len(baseURL)-1] != '/' {
baseURL += "/"
}
return strings.HasPrefix(toCheck, baseURL)
}
func CheckAndEnsureSafePR(pr *base.PullRequest, commonCloneBaseURL string, g base.Downloader) bool {
valid := true
if pr.PatchURL != "" && !hasBaseURL(pr.PatchURL, commonCloneBaseURL) {
pr.PatchURL = ""
valid = false
}
if pr.Head.CloneURL != "" && !hasBaseURL(pr.Head.CloneURL, commonCloneBaseURL) {
pr.Head.CloneURL = ""
valid = false
}
return valid
}
```
strings.HasPrefix(anything, "") is always true in Go. Because
restore.go is the only caller that passes "" as
commonCloneBaseURL, this check is a complete no-op on the restore-repo
path — Head.CloneURL survives unchanged regardless of its value. Every
other downloader (github.go, gitlab.go, gitea_downloader.go,
codebase.go, codecommit.go, onedev.go) passes a real base URL, so
they are not affected.
services/migrations/gitea_uploader.go then uses the unvalidated value
directly:
```go
err := g.gitRepo.AddRemote(remote, pr.Head.CloneURL, true)
// ... later: fetch from that remote
```
resulting in the server executing git fetch against an
attacker-controlled URL sourced from the dump file.
RCE via git's ext:: transport helper was tested and ruled out — a
normal git install rejects it by default (`fatal: transport 'ext' not
allowed`), independent of Gitea's own configuration. This report is
scoped to SSRF and local git-repository disclosure.
Confirmed present, byte-for-byte identical, in v1.26.4 (latest stable
tag), release/v1.27, and main, by direct checkout and diff.
PoC
1. Create a dump directory following the normal restore-repo layout
(repo.yml, etc.), and add a pull_request.yml containing at least
one entry with:
```yaml
- number: 1
head:
cloneURL: "http://<attacker-controlled-or-internal-host>:<port>/ssrf-proof"
ref: "main"
```
2. Run gitea restore-repo against that dump directory for any repo
owner.
3. Observe on the target host/listener: an actual git HTTP
discovery request arrives, e.g.
GET /ssrf-proof/info/refs?service=git-upload-pack, driven entirely
by the value from the dump file.
Verified the core mechanism (steps 2–3, i.e. the unvalidated
Head.CloneURL surviving CheckAndEnsureSafePR("") and then being used
in a real git remote add + git fetch) with a minimal, standalone Go
program built from the verbatim, unmodified hasBaseURL /
CheckAndEnsureSafePR function bodies (attached: gitea_ssrf_poc.go),
run end-to-end against a local HTTP listener. The listener's access log
confirms the request actually arrives.
Impact
An attacker who can get an administrator to run gitea restore-repo
against a malicious dump (the same threat model already accepted for the
just-fixed path-traversal issue in this command, #38215) can make the
Gitea server issue a git fetch against an arbitrary attacker-chosen
URL. This allows:
- SSRF against internal-only services or cloud metadata endpoints
reachable from the Gitea host.
- Disclosure of local git repositories reachable via
file://paths
readable by the Gitea process.
No public disclosure planned. Happy to provide further detail on
request.
How this vulnerability can be exploited
This issue can be reached with local access to the system, attack complexity is low, an attacker needs no privileges on the target. A user must be tricked into taking some action. The scope is changed, meaning a successful attack can affect components beyond the vulnerable one. Rated impact: confidentiality high, integrity none, availability none.
Weakness class
CVE-2026-58441 is classified as CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). The server fetches a URL supplied by the caller, which can be pointed at internal systems it alone can reach.
Affected software
CVE-2026-58441 is recorded against 2 packages.
- code.gitea.io/gitea
- gitea.dev
Timeline and source
Published on 21 July 2026 and last revised on 27 July 2026. No public exploit is currently recorded for this entry. Record sourced from OSV.
References
Details
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Affected Packages
| Software | From version | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| code.gitea.io/gitea | — | — |
| gitea.dev | — | — |
References
Similar Threats
- High CVE-2021-3382
- High CVE-2020-14144
- Medium CVE-2022-38183
- Medium CVE-2022-1928
- Unknown CVE-2019-1010261
More CVE 2026 advisories
Browse all of CVE 2026 in the advisory index.
Free Vulnerability Check
Is your site affected by CVE-2026-58441?
BotEraser helps you identify potentially vulnerable plugins and themes by checking your installation against CVE-2026-58441 and other known CVE records.
Scan My Site Free →No credit card required · Results in minutes
ⓘ Data Notice: The information presented above has been compiled from publicly available internet sources. Boteraser aggregates this data solely for informational purposes and does not independently classify, evaluate, or endorse any findings about the vulnerabilities listed. The accuracy and completeness of this information is the sole responsibility of the original publishers. Boteraser and its operators accept no liability for any decisions made based on this data.