CVE-2026-104632

Gitea fork workflow approval bypass through cancel and rerun

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 20th percentile. A vendor fix is available.

CVSS 3.18.8High EPSS percentile20th0.3% chance in 30 days CISA KEVNot listedNo confirmed exploitation
No public exploit known FixVendor fixNo build named by the sources

Published 2026-10-06Updated 2026-10-13Sources: CVE.org, NVD

NVD CVE.org

What to do

The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.

GiteaAffected: ≤ 1.27.3Upgrade to: after 1.27.3Stated by: CVE record

Versions as the sources state them. Full version matrix after sign-in

Steps

Written by AI from the record

Check whether your organization self-hosts Gitea and has Actions enabled with runners registered.
If so, confirm whether you accept pull requests from outside contributors (forks) — this is the main risk scenario.
Upgrade Gitea to version 28.0.0 or later, which fixes the approval bypass.
If you cannot upgrade immediately, review the vendor workaround advisory and restrict who has Actions write access until patched.
After upgrading, review recent workflow runs for any unexpected cancel-then-rerun activity on fork pull requests.

Vendor advisory Usually a quick update

Check it yourselfA free OpenVAS check exists for this CVE. Run it against your hosts.Is your organisation exposed?Request an assessment to establish which checks fit your systems.

What it is

From the CVE record

Gitea Actions blocks the jobs of workflow runs from first-time fork pull request contributors until a maintainer approves the run. The rerun path only required a run to be finished and built the new attempt's jobs without considering the pending approval, so when a user with Actions write access cancelled a run that was awaiting approval and then re-ran it, the new jobs were created as waiting rather than blocked while the run still recorded that approval was required. Cancelling and re-running stale fork checks is a routine action that does not involve the approval control, so where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, workflow code taken from the fork pull request head could run on the repository's runners without an explicit approval.

In plain language

Written by AI from the record

A flaw in Gitea (versions before 28.0.0) lets someone with write access skip the required approval step for code submitted by outside contributors, letting untrusted code run on your build servers — if you use Gitea's Actions feature, you should update soon.

Gitea's fork pull-request approval gate (CWE-285, Improper Authorization) can be bypassed because the cancel-and-rerun path rebuilds jobs as 'waiting' without rechecking the pending-approval state, letting a user with Actions write permission execute untrusted fork PR workflow code on repository runners without maintainer sign-off.

If you're affected

Untrusted code execution on build servers
CI/CD pipeline compromise
Secrets or credentials theft
Supply chain tampering risk

What is it

Gitea is a tool for hosting and managing code, similar to a private version of GitHub. It normally requires a maintainer to approve any code submitted by an outside contributor before that code can run on your servers — like a security guard checking IDs before letting someone into the building. This flaw lets someone slip past that guard by cancelling and restarting the check, so unapproved outside code can run anyway.

Who is affected

This matters to you if you self-host Gitea for your company's code repositories and have the Actions (automated build/test) feature turned on with runners registered. It's most relevant if you accept contributions or pull requests from people outside your organization. The risk only applies if your Gitea instance uses Actions with a configured runner — if Actions isn't enabled, this bypass has nothing to act on.

How urgent is it

This is a red-flag, act-now issue: while there's no confirmed active exploitation yet, the flaw is easy to trigger — it only requires routine actions (cancel, then rerun a check) that any user with standard Actions access can already perform. Given the high severity and the ease of misuse, you should not wait for signs of attack before patching. Treat this as urgent, not optional.

What to do — in detail

Confirm exposure: check if your Gitea instance has Actions enabled (Admin Panel → Actions) and has one or more runners registered, and whether fork pull requests are permitted.
Target version: upgrade to Gitea 28.0.0 or later, which contains the fix referenced in PR go-gitea/gitea#39399.
Upgrade path: follow Gitea's standard release upgrade procedure; review release notes for the 28.x branch for any breaking changes relevant to your deployment (database migrations, config changes).
Temporary workaround if patching is delayed: tighten who has Actions 'write' permission on repositories, since the bypass requires that role; consider disabling Actions for repositories that accept external fork PRs until patched. See the GHSA-pvjf-7jrm-6w9g advisory for official workaround guidance.
Monitor: after patching, audit Actions run history for any fork PR workflow that was cancelled and immediately rerun by a non-maintainer, as this is the specific abuse pattern described.
No CISA KEV listing exists for this CVE and no public exploit code has been reported, so there is no mandated remediation deadline, but the CVSS 8.8 (High) score supports prioritizing this promptly.

Technical context

CVSS 3.1 score is 8.8 (High) — AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H, meaning network-exploitable with low complexity, requiring low privileges (Actions write access) and no user interaction, with high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Weakness class is CWE-285 (Improper Authorization): the rerun handler builds new job attempts as 'waiting' without re-evaluating the pending fork-approval flag set on the original run. Not listed in CISA KEV, no public exploit code identified, and EPSS predicts low near-term exploitation probability with a flat trend, consistent with no confirmed in-the-wild activity. Exploit maturity is theoretical/PoC-level based on vendor disclosure rather than observed attacks. Fixed in Gitea 28.0.0 per upstream PR #39399.

This is a general assessment based on public vulnerability data. It does not account for your specific infrastructure — when in doubt, consult a security specialist.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS20th

CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.3% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 20th percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Attention now

Rising, driven by in-the-wild reports.

Lifecycle

9 events over 16 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

2026-10-22OpenVAS check added
2026-10-13Patch availableworkaround available, record updated
2026-10-07Record updatedrecord updated
2026-10-06Publishedweakness classified, record updated

Affected products

Giteaoss-projectaka gitea open source git server
- GiteaWeb AppOn-premDevTools & CI / source-control

And 1 more affected product. See all after sign-in

Technical detail

CVSS 3.1 vector

Open in the CVSS calculator

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Scored 8.8 by NVD.

How it is reached

Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
Attack Complexity LowNo special conditions — the attack can be reliably reproduced
Privileges Required LowRequires basic user-level privileges
User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself

Impact if exploited

Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
Integrity HighTotal loss of integrity — attacker can modify any data in the component
Availability HighTotal denial of service — the component is completely unavailable