CVE-2026-58424

Permanent Fork PR Workflow Approval Gate Bypass

Permanent Fork PR Workflow Approval Gate Bypass

| Field | Value | |-------|-------| | Identifier (researcher-assigned) | GITEA-2026-004 | | Product | Gitea (self-hosted Git service) | | Component | Gitea Actions — fork pull request approval gate | | Affected versions | All Gitea releases v1.20.0 and later, including the latest main (1.27.0+dev-289-gb7e95cc48c). The buggy logic was introduced in commit edf98a2dc3 — "Require approval to run actions for fork pull request (#22803)", 2023-02-24 — and has shipped unchanged since. | | Fixed in | not yet (this disclosure) | | Authentication required | Yes — one unprivileged Gitea account capable of forking the target repository (the default ability for every authenticated user) | | User interaction required | Exactly once — a repository administrator must approve a single benign fork PR's workflow run from the attacker. After that, no further interaction is ever required for any future fork PR from the same attacker on the same repository. | | Discovered by | Prakhar Porwal — [email protected] | | Live-verified on | Gitea main at commit b7e95cc48cc0e0d6fe24c89bb83da5b84a74490f, 2026-05-24 |

1. Executive summary

Gitea Actions enforces an approval gate on workflow runs triggered by fork pull requests, so that an untrusted contributor cannot execute arbitrary workflow YAML on the maintainer's runner infrastructure without explicit consent. The gate is implemented by ifNeedApproval() in services/actions/notifier_helper.go. Its final clause skips the gate whenever the triggering user has any previously-approved run in the same repository:

// services/actions/notifier_helper.go:423-433
if count, err := db.Count[actions_model.ActionRun](ctx, actions_model.FindRunOptions{
    RepoID:        repo.ID,
    TriggerUserID: user.ID,
    Approved:      true,
}); err != nil {
    return false, fmt.Errorf("CountRuns: %w", err)
} else if count > 0 {
    log.Trace("do not need approval because user %d has been approved before", user.ID)
    return false, nil
}

The check is scoped to (repo_id, trigger_user_id) only. It does not consider the pull request, the head commit, the workflow file contents, or any time window. The single approval click on a contributor's first fork PR is therefore interpreted by Gitea as "this user is permanently trusted to execute any workflow YAML on this repository's CI infrastructure forever" — for every future PR, on any branch, against any commit, regardless of what the workflow does.

This is a structural deviation from the documented intent — the in-source comment on the bypassing path reads "if it's the first time user … triggered actions", implying a per-action-trigger check that the code does not actually perform. It is also a deviation from the equivalent behavior on the platform Gitea Actions is modeled after (GitHub Actions), where the first-contributor gate persists until a PR is merged, not merely approved-to-run.

I have live-reproduced the bypass end-to-end against a current main build. With zero further interaction from the maintainer after the one-time approval, an attacker's second PR's workflow:

• Was created with need_approval = 0 and approved_by = 0 in the action_run table (i.e. nobody ever approved it, and yet it was not gated).
• Was dispatched to the runner immediately.
• Executed arbitrary shell on the runner, with outbound network access, a populated GITHUB_TOKEN, and access to the cloned source.

Full receipts are in §3.

2. Affected code

Primary

services/actions/notifier_helper.go:401-438 — the ifNeedApproval function:

func ifNeedApproval(ctx context.Context, run *actions_model.ActionRun,
                    repo *repo_model.Repository, user *user_model.User) (bool, error) {
    // 1. don't need approval if it's not a fork PR
    // 2. don't need approval if the event is `pull_request_target` since the
    //   …

Permanent Fork PR Workflow Approval Gate Bypass

Permanent Fork PR Workflow Approval Gate Bypass

| Field | Value | |-------|-------| | Identifier (researcher-assigned) | GITEA-2026-004 | | Product | Gitea (self-hosted Git service) | | Component | Gitea Actions — fork pull request approval gate | | Affected versions | All Gitea releases v1.20.0 and later, including the latest main (1.27.0+dev-289-gb7e95cc48c). The buggy logic was introduced in commit edf98a2dc3 — "Require approval to run actions for fork pull request (#22803)", 2023-02-24 — and has shipped unchanged since. | | Fixed in | not yet (this disclosure) | | Authentication required | Yes — one unprivileged Gitea account capable of forking the target repository (the default ability for every authenticated user) | | User interaction required | Exactly once — a repository administrator must approve a single benign fork PR's workflow run from the attacker. After that, no further interaction is ever required for any future fork PR from the same attacker on the same repository. | | Discovered by | Prakhar Porwal — [email protected] | | Live-verified on | Gitea main at commit b7e95cc48cc0e0d6fe24c89bb83da5b84a74490f, 2026-05-24 |

1. Executive summary

Gitea Actions enforces an approval gate on workflow runs triggered by fork pull requests, so that an untrusted contributor cannot execute arbitrary workflow YAML on the maintainer's runner infrastructure without explicit consent. The gate is implemented by ifNeedApproval() in services/actions/notifier_helper.go. Its final clause skips the gate whenever the triggering user has any previously-approved run in the same repository:

// services/actions/notifier_helper.go:423-433
if count, err := db.Count[actions_model.ActionRun](ctx, actions_model.FindRunOptions{
    RepoID:        repo.ID,
    TriggerUserID: user.ID,
    Approved:      true,
}); err != nil {
    return false, fmt.Errorf("CountRuns: %w", err)
} else if count > 0 {
    log.Trace("do not need approval because user %d has been approved before", user.ID)
    return false, nil
}

The check is scoped to (repo_id, trigger_user_id) only. It does not consider the pull request, the head commit, the workflow file contents, or any time window. The single approval click on a contributor's first fork PR is therefore interpreted by Gitea as "this user is permanently trusted to execute any workflow YAML on this repository's CI infrastructure forever" — for every future PR, on any branch, against any commit, regardless of what the workflow does.

This is a structural deviation from the documented intent — the in-source comment on the bypassing path reads "if it's the first time user … triggered actions", implying a per-action-trigger check that the code does not actually perform. It is also a deviation from the equivalent behavior on the platform Gitea Actions is modeled after (GitHub Actions), where the first-contributor gate persists until a PR is merged, not merely approved-to-run.

I have live-reproduced the bypass end-to-end against a current main build. With zero further interaction from the maintainer after the one-time approval, an attacker's second PR's workflow:

• Was created with need_approval = 0 and approved_by = 0 in the action_run table (i.e. nobody ever approved it, and yet it was not gated).
• Was dispatched to the runner immediately.
• Executed arbitrary shell on the runner, with outbound network access, a populated GITHUB_TOKEN, and access to the cloned source.

Full receipts are in §3.

2. Affected code

Primary

services/actions/notifier_helper.go:401-438 — the ifNeedApproval function:

func ifNeedApproval(ctx context.Context, run *actions_model.ActionRun,
                    repo *repo_model.Repository, user *user_model.User) (bool, error) {
    // 1. don't need approval if it's not a fork PR
    // 2. don't need approval if the event is `pull_request_target` since the
    //   …

Gitea: Permanent Fork PR Workflow Approval Gate Bypass in code.gitea.io/gitea

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

• Update to version 0.0.20260723T184607 2026-07-23T18:46:07Z (jsc#PED-11136).

Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

• GO-2026-4730 CVE-2026-33022 GHSA-cv4x-93xx-wgfj
• GO-2026-4761 CVE-2026-33211 GHSA-j5q5-j9gm-2w5c
• GO-2026-5102 CVE-2026-45021 GHSA-3vcp-chfh-f6r2
• GO-2026-5272 CVE-2026-40938 GHSA-94jr-7pqp-xhcq
• GO-2026-5486 CVE-2026-40924 GHSA-m2cx-gpqf-qf74
• GO-2026-5542 CVE-2026-40090 GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q
• GO-2026-5630 CVE-2026-25542 GHSA-rmx9-2pp3-xhcr
• GO-2026-5643 CVE-2026-40923 GHSA-rx35-6rhx-7858
• GO-2026-5675 CVE-2026-41492 GHSA-vvf7-6rmr-m29q
• GO-2026-5711 CVE-2026-40161 GHSA-wjxp-xrpv-xpff
• GO-2026-5746 CVE-2026-41567 GHSA-x86f-5xw2-fm2r
• GO-2026-5749 CVE-2026-41328 GHSA-x92x-px7w-4gx4
• GO-2026-5837 CVE-2026-44840 GHSA-q2m9-6jp9-c6mc
• GO-2026-5929 CVE-2026-44342 GHSA-26v7-h57m-gh9m
• GO-2026-5930 CVE-2026-33655 GHSA-6qcr-qxgr-m7fv
• GO-2026-5933 GHSA-3g4q-2f67-2gvh
• GO-2026-5934 GHSA-59qp-cfj3-rp64
• GO-2026-5935 GHSA-7856-g3gv-9wq8
• GO-2026-5936 CVE-2026-53552 GHSA-26rh-24rg-j3vv
• GO-2026-5937 CVE-2026-53508 GHSA-2jcc-mxv7-p3f9
• GO-2026-5938 CVE-2026-53553 GHSA-4g5x-hcwm-82jw
• GO-2026-5939 CVE-2026-10517 GHSA-698x-9w2p-7vvp
• GO-2026-5940 CVE-2026-53572 GHSA-6w3m-4hhp-775q
• GO-2026-5941 CVE-2026-53487 GHSA-gvhc-wv3v-7pf8
• GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600
• GO-2026-5944 CVE-2026-50197 GHSA-659f-rgp5-w4wf
• GO-2026-5945 CVE-2026-6815 GHSA-rmxx-v9rj-vpvg
• GO-2026-5946 CVE-2026-52831 GHSA-v5px-423j-pf7p
• GO-2026-5947 CVE-2026-53649 GHSA-xqhv-chqm-fhcc
• GO-2026-5948 CVE-2026-50554 GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
• GO-2026-5949 CVE-2026-50553 GHSA-rqrh-8wpv-x7hh
• GO-2026-5950 CVE-2026-53602 GHSA-339v-266x-79xr
• GO-2026-5951 CVE-2026-10219 GHSA-6jm8-4fhr-5w64
• GO-2026-5952 CVE-2026-49834 GHSA-9vcr-p3rj-q5q6
• GO-2026-5953 CVE-2026-9094 GHSA-c9w5-qp6m-m395
• GO-2026-5956 CVE-2026-55252 GHSA-h5g6-xmh4-hc37
• GO-2026-5957 CVE-2026-54158 GHSA-5xfx-xj4h-5p7r
• GO-2026-5958 CVE-2026-54068 GHSA-gcm7-57gf-953c
• GO-2026-5959 CVE-2026-54072 GHSA-h29v-hj44-q8cv
• GO-2026-5961 CVE-2026-54069 GHSA-hvr9-72v2-fff3
• GO-2026-5962 CVE-2026-54088 GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
• GO-2026-5963 CVE-2026-54067 GHSA-mvjr-vv3c-w4qv
• GO-2026-5964 CVE-2026-54066 GHSA-p4m3-mgmm-c664
• GO-2026-5965 CVE-2026-54070 GHSA-w7cg-whh7-xp28
• GO-2026-5966 CVE-2026-54089 GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
• GO-2026-5967 CVE-2026-50551 GHSA-56mp-4f3v-fgj2
• GO-2026-5968 CVE-2026-54174 GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q
• GO-2026-5969 GHSA-g936-7jqj-mwv8
• GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852
• GO-2026-5973 CVE-2026-54250 GHSA-jxr7-mqhw-9p98
• GO-2026-5974 CVE-2026-44300 GHSA-wmj8-9953-vff5
• GO-2026-5975 CVE-2026-50018 GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7
• GO-2026-5976 CVE-2026-50141 GHSA-g7mm-9vx7-jm7h
• GO-2026-5977 CVE-2026-50013 GHSA-qrh4-p6v4-mrfg
• GO-2026-5978 CVE-2026-50125 GHSA-qw5r-ppcg-f8rj
• GO-2026-5979 CVE-2026-50006 GHSA-xrcf-6jh3-ggvx
• GO-2026-5980 CVE-2026-50158 GHSA-2c7f-fxww-6w6c
• GO-2026-5981 GHSA-mqxv-9rm6-w8qc
• GO-2026-5982 GHSA-pqg7-v6wh-3pfp
• GO-2026-5984 CVE-2026-53604 GHSA-2p2f-px33-4vv5
• GO-2026-5985 GHSA-7rx3-5wx3-5v76
• GO-2026-5986 CVE-2026-61699 GHSA-cm26-5974-52h8
• GO-2026-5987 CVE-2026-55513 GHSA-g4x6-jcvr-9m3g
• GO-2026-5988 CVE-2026-54628 GHSA-hwrq-8wxh-q4xv
• GO-2026-5989 CVE-2026-55512 GHSA-m3cx-mwpg-32jg
• GO-2026-5990 CVE-2026-54629 GHSA-mf78-3rpf-r784
• GO-2026-5991 CVE-2026-53603 GHSA-q4vm-pq3q-8wgq
• GO-2026-5992 CVE-2026-61549 GHSA-qf34-295c-26v8
• GO-2026-5996 CVE-2026-54450 GHSA-pph6-vfjv-vpjw
• GO-2026-5997 CVE-2026-54452 GHSA-xgch-x3mx-cm3c
• GO-2026-5998 CVE-2026-54495 GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
• GO-2026-5999 CVE-2026-10814 GHSA-jh6h-v6mp-h22v
• GO-2026-6002 CVE-2026-58196 GHSA-pr64-jmmf-jp54
• GO-2026-6003 CVE-2026-53714 GHSA-22xc-xg2r-9j7v
• GO-2026-6004 CVE-2026-52833 GHSA-3v79-m2cg-89ww
• GO-2026-6005 CVE-2026-53715 GHSA-8fv2-88gg-hm7q
• GO-2026-6006 CVE-2026-53716 GHSA-cxpq-8v7q-cg56 *…