Skip to content

Gitea: Incomplete SSRF Protection in Webhook and Migration Allow-list Default Filter

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 21, 2026 in go-gitea/gitea

Package

gomod code.gitea.io/gitea (Go)

Affected versions

< 1.26.3

Patched versions

1.26.3

Description

Summary

Gitea's default SSRF allow-list (MatchBuiltinExternal, used by both webhook delivery and repository migrations) relies on Go's standard library net.IP.IsPrivate(), which only covers RFC 1918 and RFC 4193. As a result, several IP ranges commonly used for cloud metadata services, internal networks, and IPv6 transition mechanisms are not blocked, allowing authenticated users to send HTTP requests to those destinations and read the responses via the webhook history UI.

Details

The vulnerability lives in HostMatchList.checkIP, specifically line 103:

case MatchBuiltinExternal:
    if ip.IsGlobalUnicast() && !ip.IsPrivate() {
        return true
    }

net.IP.IsPrivate() recognises only:

  • 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16 (RFC 1918)
  • fc00::/7 (RFC 4193 IPv6 ULA)

It does not recognise:

Range Description
100.64.0.0/10 RFC 6598 Carrier-Grade NAT
168.63.129.16/32 Azure WireServer metadata endpoint
172.32.0.0/11 Non-RFC1918 portion of 172.0.0.0/8 (real-world internal use)
64:ff9b::/96 RFC 6052 IPv6 NAT64 (can embed 169.254.169.254)
2001::/32 RFC 4380 Teredo tunneling
2002::/16 RFC 3056 6to4
2001:db8::/32 RFC 3849 documentation

The default is reached by webhook delivery at services/webhook/deliver.go#L312-L316 and by repository migrations at services/migrations/migrate.go#L522.

The SSRF is not blind. Webhook delivery captures the response status, headers, and up to 1 MiB of body (services/webhook/deliver.go#L259-L270) and renders them in the webhook history UI (templates/repo/settings/webhook/history.tmpl#L75-L85), so attackers can read everything the targeted internal service returns.

Impact

An authenticated user who can create or modify a webhook can:

  • Reach cloud metadata endpoints (AWS IMDS via NAT64 64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe, Azure WireServer 168.63.129.16)
  • Probe and exfiltrate from internal services on CGNAT (100.64.0.0/10) or non-RFC1918 172.x ranges
  • Read full HTTP response bodies through the webhook history UI

The same default is applied to repository migrations, broadening the attack surface to users who can trigger a migration.

Proof of Concept

The attached patch (gitea_ssrf_test.patch) adds TestSSRFBypassRanges to the existing test file. It uses Go subtests so each vulnerable range is its own named failing test case.

Run with:

go test -v ./modules/hostmatcher -run TestSSRFBypassRanges

Expected result on 4c37f4dacbac022f7beca75272439331f0368830:

  • 8 PASS — RFC 1918, IPv6 private ranges, and legitimate public IPs (control cases)
  • 10 FAIL — Each failing subtest is a documented SSRF bypass

Sample failure output:

--- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/CGNAT_100.64.0.0/10_(RFC_6598)
    Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true
    Messages: ip=100.64.0.1
--- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/Azure_WireServer_168.63.129.16
    Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true
    Messages: ip=168.63.129.16
--- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/IPv6_NAT64_embedded_AWS_IMDS_169.254.169.254
    Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true
    Messages: ip=64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe

Suggested Remediation

I'd suggest treating the design of MatchBuiltinExternal as the bug — IsPrivate() is too narrow a definition of "internal." A comprehensive deny-list approach is what's needed here. For reference, CC-Tweaked's AddressPredicate.PrivatePattern is a good reference list, blocking each of the ranges named in the table above plus a few others (multicast, broadcast, TEST-NET, etc.).

The exact remediation is at your discretion.

References


Patch

Proposed gitea_ssrf_test.patch:

diff --git a/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go b/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go
index c781847..0b39e60 100644
--- a/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go
+++ b/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go
@@ -159,3 +159,56 @@ func TestHostOrIPMatchesList(t *testing.T) {
 	}
 	test(cases)
 }
+
+// TestSSRFBypassRanges verifies that the "external" filter (the default used by
+// webhook delivery and repository migrations) blocks dangerous IP ranges.
+//
+// Each subtest's `allowed` field is the expected return value of MatchHostOrIP:
+//   - false: the IP should be blocked (rejected by the filter)
+//   - true:  the IP should be allowed (a legitimate public destination)
+//
+// Subtests that FAIL are documented SSRF bypasses: IP ranges that should be
+// blocked but are incorrectly allowed because the underlying check relies on
+// net.IP.IsPrivate(), which only covers RFC 1918 and RFC 4193.
+func TestSSRFBypassRanges(t *testing.T) {
+	type tc struct {
+		ip      net.IP
+		allowed bool
+	}
+
+	hl := ParseHostMatchList("", "external")
+
+	cases := map[string]tc{
+		// RFC 1918 / IPv6 private ranges - correctly blocked
+		"RFC1918 10.0.0.0/8":        {net.ParseIP("10.0.0.1"), false},
+		"RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12":     {net.ParseIP("172.16.0.1"), false},
+		"RFC1918 192.168.0.0/16":    {net.ParseIP("192.168.1.1"), false},
+		"IPv6 loopback ::1":         {net.ParseIP("::1"), false},
+		"IPv6 link-local fe80::/10": {net.ParseIP("fe80::1"), false},
+		"IPv6 ULA fd00::/8":         {net.ParseIP("fd00::1"), false},
+
+		// Legitimate public IPs - correctly allowed
+		"Public IPv4 (Google DNS)": {net.ParseIP("8.8.8.8"), true},
+		"Public IPv6 (Google DNS)": {net.ParseIP("2001:4860:4860::8888"), true},
+
+		// SSRF bypasses - the assertions below intentionally describe the
+		// expected secure behavior (allowed=false). Each failing subtest is
+		// a documented bypass.
+		"CGNAT 100.64.0.0/10 (RFC 6598)":              {net.ParseIP("100.64.0.1"), false},
+		"CGNAT 100.127.255.254 (RFC 6598)":            {net.ParseIP("100.127.255.254"), false},
+		"Azure WireServer 168.63.129.16":              {net.ParseIP("168.63.129.16"), false},
+		"Non-RFC1918 172.32.0.0/11":                   {net.ParseIP("172.32.0.1"), false},
+		"Non-RFC1918 172.45.0.0/16":                   {net.ParseIP("172.45.0.1"), false},
+		"IPv6 NAT64 64:ff9b::/96 (RFC 6052)":          {net.ParseIP("64:ff9b::1"), false},
+		"IPv6 NAT64 embedded AWS IMDS 169.254.169.254": {net.ParseIP("64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe"), false},
+		"IPv6 Teredo 2001::/32 (RFC 4380)":            {net.ParseIP("2001::1"), false},
+		"IPv6 6to4 2002::/16 (RFC 3056)":              {net.ParseIP("2002::1"), false},
+		"IPv6 documentation 2001:db8::/32 (RFC 3849)": {net.ParseIP("2001:db8::1"), false},
+	}
+
+	for name, c := range cases {
+		t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T) {
+			assert.Equalf(t, c.allowed, hl.MatchHostOrIP("", c.ip), "ip=%v", c.ip)
+		})
+	}
+}

Credit

This vulnerability was uncovered by @JLLeitschuh of the @braze-inc security team.

References

@bircni bircni published to go-gitea/gitea Jun 21, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 3, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 21, 2026
Reviewed Jul 21, 2026

Severity

Critical

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
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
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:C/C:H/I:H/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.
(44th 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-2026-22874

GHSA ID

GHSA-2r5c-gw76-rh3w

Source code

Credits

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