The API endpoint used to fork repositories into organizations performs a weaker authorization check than the corresponding web UI and other repository creation endpoints.
When a repository is forked into an organization through the API, the endpoint only verifies that the user is an organization member (IsOrgMember()), but does not verify whether the user is allowed to create repositories in that organization (CanCreateOrgRepo()).
As a result, organization members belonging to teams with can_create_org_repo=false can still create repositories inside the organization by using the fork API.
Affected endpoint:
POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/forks
In routers/api/v1/repo/fork.go, the endpoint performs the following authorization check:
if !ctx.Doer.IsAdmin {
isMember, err := org.IsOrgMember(ctx, ctx.Doer.ID)
if !isMember {
ctx.APIError(http.StatusForbidden, ...)
return
}
}
The equivalent web UI implementation uses the stronger permission check:
isAllowedToFork, err := organization.OrgFromUser(ctxUser).
CanCreateOrgRepo(ctx, ctx.Doer.ID)
The same CanCreateOrgRepo() authorization check is also used by:
The fork endpoint appears to be the only repository creation path that relies solely on organization membership.
Tested on Gitea 1.23.7.
can_create_org_repo=false.POST /api/v1/orgs/target-org/repos
Result:
403 Forbidden
POST /api/v1/repos/admin/public-repo/forks
Content-Type: application/json
{
"organization": "target-org"
}
Result:
202 Accepted
The repository is successfully created despite repository creation permissions being disabled.
Users who are organization members but are intentionally prevented from creating repositories can bypass that restriction through the API.
This allows unauthorized repository creation inside the organization and may expose additional attack surface depending on the organization's Actions, runner, and workflow configuration.
The vulnerability represents an authorization bypass because API behavior is less restrictive than both the web UI and other repository creation endpoints.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
code.gitea.io/gitea
|
< 1.26.0 |
A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.
What is attack surface management? →A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.