Summary
Gogs has an Authorization Bypass Allows Cross-Repository Label Modification in Gogs
Summary
A broken access control vulnerability in Gogs allows authenticated users with write access to any repository to modify labels belonging to other repositories. The UpdateLabel function in the Web UI (internal/route/repo/issue.go) fails to verify that the label being modified belongs to the repository specified in the URL path, enabling cross-repository label tampering attacks.
Details
The vulnerability exists in the Web UI's label update endpoint POST /:username/:reponame/labels/edit. The handler function UpdateLabel uses an incorrect database query function that bypasses repository ownership validation:
Vulnerable Code (internal/route/repo/issue.go:1040-1054):
func UpdateLabel(c *context.Context, f form.CreateLabel) {
l, err := database.GetLabelByID(f.ID) // ❌ No repository validation
if err != nil {
c.NotFoundOrError(err, "get label by ID")
return
}
// ❌ Missing validation: l.RepoID != c.Repo.Repository.ID
l.Name = f.Title
l.Color = f.Color
if err := database.UpdateLabel(l); err != nil {
c.Error(err, "update label")
return
}
c.RawRedirect(c.Repo.MakeURL("labels"))
}
Root Cause:
- The function calls
database.GetLabelByID(f.ID)which internally passesrepoID=0to the ORM layer - According to code comments in
internal/database/issue_label.go:147-166, passingrepoID=0causes the ORM to ignore repository restrictions - No validation checks whether
l.RepoID == c.Repo.Repository.IDbefore updating - The middleware
reqRepoWriter()only validates write access to the repository in the URL path, not the label's actual repository
Inconsistency with Other Functions:
NewLabel: Correctly setsRepoID = c.Repo.Repository.IDDeleteLabel: Correctly usesdatabase.DeleteLabel(c.Repo.Repository.ID, id)- API
EditLabel: Correctly usesdatabase.GetLabelOfRepoByID(c.Repo.Repository.ID, id)
- Only
UpdateLabelin Web UI uses the vulnerable pattern
PoC
Prerequisites:
- Two user accounts: Alice (attacker) and Bob (victim)
- alice has written access to repo-a
- Bob owns repo-b with labels
Step 1: Identify Target Label ID
- Login as bob, navigate to bob/repo-b/labels
- Open browser DevTools (F12) → Network tab
- Click edit on any label
- Observe the form data: id=
- Example: id=1
Step 2: Execute Attack
# Login as alice, get session cookie
# Open DevTools → Application → Cookies → i_like_gogs
# Copy the cookie value
# Send malicious request
curl -X POST "http://localhost:3000/alice/repo-a/labels/edit" \
-H "Cookie: i_like_gogs=<ALICE_SESSION_COOKIE>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
-d "id=1&title=HACKED-BY-ALICE&color=%23000000"
# Expected response: 302 Found (redirect)
Step 3: Verify Impact
- Login as bob
- Navigate to bob/repo-b/labels
- Observe: Label "P0-Critical" is now "HACKED-BY-ALICE" with black color
Impact
Issue Classification Disruption: Modify critical labels (e.g., "P0-Critical" → "P3-Low") causing urgent issues to be deprioritized
Security Issue Concealment: Change "security" labels to "documentation" to hide vulnerability reports from security teams
Workflow** Sabotage**: Alter labels used in CI/CD automation, breaking deployment pipelines
Mass Disruption: Batch modifies all labels across multiple repositories using ID enumeration
Recommended Fix:
func UpdateLabel(c *context.Context, f form.CreateLabel) {
l, err := database.GetLabelOfRepoByID(c.Repo.Repository.ID, f.ID)
if err != nil {
c.NotFoundOrError(err, "get label of repository by ID")
return
}
// Now label ownership is validated at database layer
l.Name = f.Title
l.Color = f.Color
if err := database.UpdateLabel(l); err != nil {
c.Error(err, "update label")
return
}
c.RawRedirect(c.Repo.MakeURL("labels"))
}
Impact
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-25229? CVE-2026-25229 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in gogs.io/gogs (go), affecting versions <= 0.13.4. It is fixed in 0.14.0.
- Which versions of gogs.io/gogs are affected by CVE-2026-25229? gogs.io/gogs (go) versions <= 0.13.4 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-25229? Yes. CVE-2026-25229 is fixed in 0.14.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-25229 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-25229 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-25229 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-25229? Upgrade
gogs.io/gogsto 0.14.0 or later.