Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-20888

Access Control in Gitea ≤ 1.25.4

Published
22 January 2026
Modified
29 January 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 4.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0030 23th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-20888 is a medium-severity Improper Access Control (CWE-284) vulnerability in Gitea Gitea. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 23th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Gitea does not properly verify authorization when canceling scheduled auto-merges via the web interface. A user with read access to pull requests may be able to cancel auto-merges scheduled by other users.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

Insufficient information to map techniques.
Confidence: LOW · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-20750Same product: Gitea Gitea
CVE-2026-20736Same product: Gitea Gitea
CVE-2026-20883Same product: Gitea Gitea
CVE-2026-0798Same product: Gitea Gitea
CVE-2026-20897Same product: Gitea Gitea
CVE-2026-20904Same product: Gitea Gitea
CVE-2026-20912Same product: Gitea Gitea
CVE-2026-33318Shared CWE-284, CWE-862
CVE-2023-2183Shared CWE-284, CWE-862
CVE-2024-10393Shared CWE-284, CWE-862

Affected Assets

gitea
gitea
≤ 1.25.4

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • AC-3 Access Enforcement
  • AC-6 Least Privilege
  • CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 13 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V10.3.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly enforces authorization checks before allowing cancellation of scheduled auto-merges, preventing the missing authorization flaw described in the CVE.

prevent

Ensures users with only read access to PRs cannot perform state-changing actions such as canceling auto-merges scheduled by others.

prevent

Restricts the ability to perform configuration or workflow changes (auto-merge cancellation) to only authorized roles, addressing the improper access path.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.AA-05 full match
prevents

Explicitly requires defining, enforcing, and reviewing authorizations and least privilege, directly preventing missing authorization checks.

PR.PS-01 mostly match
prevents

Hardened baselines and deviation monitoring directly eliminate most configuration-induced access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also encompasses code-level and design flaws outside the scope of configuration management alone.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices catch most access-control defects during design/coding/testing (mostly), yet leave residual risk from runtime configuration, architecture, and operational controls (partial).

PR.AA-01 partial match
prevents

PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities/credentials that support but do not implement access-control decisions, so it only partially prevents CWE-284 in either direction.

PR.AA-03 partial match
prevents

Authentication directly blocks unauthenticated actors (partial prevention of CWE-284) but leaves authorization logic, policy enforcement, and role checks untouched, so the control neither eliminates nor fully mitigates the broader weakness.

PR.DS-01 partial match
prevents

PR.DS-01 encryption mitigates impact of failed access checks on stored data but neither implements nor constrains access-control logic itself.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

prevents

Defining and enforcing explicit access rights and restrictions for each entity directly stops the assignment of permissions that exceed what is required, eliminating the root condition that allows improper access control.

prevents

Formal authorization, role-based provisioning, and timely revocation of access rights directly stop the creation of accounts or permissions that exceed what the business actually needs.

prevents

By enforcing explicit rules on which identities or groups may perform read, write, delete or execute operations and by denying anonymous access to sensitive data, the control directly stops the creation of overly permissive or missing access-control checks.

prevents

Requiring one-to-one mapping of identities to entities and timely removal of unused identities directly stops attackers from leveraging stale or shared accounts to bypass access restrictions.

prevents

By explicitly transferring security roles and responsibilities when personnel change jobs or leave, the control reduces the chance that former employees retain access rights they no longer need, thereby limiting improper access control.

prevents

Physical entry controls enforce explicit authorization and authentication at every access point, directly stopping unauthorized actors from reaching information-processing assets.

References