Gitea: Incomplete SSRF Protection in Webhook and Migration Allow-list Default Filter
위협 신호 · CVSS · EPSS · KEV
이론적 심각도 점수
30일 내 악용 확률 예측
실측 악용 기록 없음
계획된 패치 주기 내 조치(60일 이내)
CVSS 벡터 · 메트릭
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N상세 설명
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:
1case MatchBuiltinExternal: 2 if ip.IsGlobalUnicast() && !ip.IsPrivate() { 3 return true 4 }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 WireServer168.63.129.16) - 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:
1go test -v ./modules/hostmatcher -run TestSSRFBypassRangesExpected 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:
1--- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/CGNAT_100.64.0.0/10_(RFC_6598) 2 Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true 3 Messages: ip=100.64.0.1 4--- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/Azure_WireServer_168.63.129.16 5 Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true 6 Messages: ip=168.63.129.16 7--- FAIL: TestSSRFBypassRanges/IPv6_NAT64_embedded_AWS_IMDS_169.254.169.254 8 Error: Not equal: expected: false, actual: true 9 Messages: ip=64:ff9b::a9fe:a9feSuggested 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
- Vulnerable function:
modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher.go#L96-L114 - Default for webhooks:
services/webhook/deliver.go#L312-L316 - Default for migrations:
services/migrations/migrate.go#L522 - Response captured:
services/webhook/deliver.go#L259-L270 - Response rendered:
templates/repo/settings/webhook/history.tmpl#L75-L85 - Go stdlib
net.IP.IsPrivate(): https://pkg.go.dev/net#IP.IsPrivate - CC-Tweaked reference deny-list:
AddressPredicate.java#L116-L169 - Go subtests pattern: https://go.dev/blog/subtests
- RFC 6598 (CGNAT), RFC 6052 (NAT64), RFC 4380 (Teredo), RFC 3056 (6to4), RFC 3849 (documentation)
Patch <a name="patch"></a>
Proposed gitea_ssrf_test.patch:
1diff --git a/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go b/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go 2index c781847..0b39e60 100644 3--- a/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go 4+++ b/modules/hostmatcher/hostmatcher_test.go 5@@ -159,3 +159,56 @@ func TestHostOrIPMatchesList(t *testing.T) { 6 } 7 test(cases) 8 } 9+10+// TestSSRFBypassRanges verifies that the "external" filter (the default used by11+// webhook delivery and repository migrations) blocks dangerous IP ranges.12+//13+// Each subtest's `allowed` field is the expected return value of MatchHostOrIP:14+// - false: the IP should be blocked (rejected by the filter)15+// - true: the IP should be allowed (a legitimate public destination)16+//17+// Subtests that FAIL are documented SSRF bypasses: IP ranges that should be18+// blocked but are incorrectly allowed because the underlying check relies on19+// net.IP.IsPrivate(), which only covers RFC 1918 and RFC 4193.20+func TestSSRFBypassRanges(t *testing.T) {21+ type tc struct {22+ ip net.IP23+ allowed bool24+ }25+26+ hl := ParseHostMatchList("", "external")27+28+ cases := map[string]tc{29+ // RFC 1918 / IPv6 private ranges - correctly blocked30+ "RFC1918 10.0.0.0/8": {net.ParseIP("10.0.0.1"), false},31+ "RFC1918 172.16.0.0/12": {net.ParseIP("172.16.0.1"), false},32+ "RFC1918 192.168.0.0/16": {net.ParseIP("192.168.1.1"), false},33+ "IPv6 loopback ::1": {net.ParseIP("::1"), false},34+ "IPv6 link-local fe80::/10": {net.ParseIP("fe80::1"), false},35+ "IPv6 ULA fd00::/8": {net.ParseIP("fd00::1"), false},36+37+ // Legitimate public IPs - correctly allowed38+ "Public IPv4 (Google DNS)": {net.ParseIP("8.8.8.8"), true},39+ "Public IPv6 (Google DNS)": {net.ParseIP("2001:4860:4860::8888"), true},40+41+ // SSRF bypasses - the assertions below intentionally describe the42+ // expected secure behavior (allowed=false). Each failing subtest is43+ // a documented bypass.44+ "CGNAT 100.64.0.0/10 (RFC 6598)": {net.ParseIP("100.64.0.1"), false},45+ "CGNAT 100.127.255.254 (RFC 6598)": {net.ParseIP("100.127.255.254"), false},46+ "Azure WireServer 168.63.129.16": {net.ParseIP("168.63.129.16"), false},47+ "Non-RFC1918 172.32.0.0/11": {net.ParseIP("172.32.0.1"), false},48+ "Non-RFC1918 172.45.0.0/16": {net.ParseIP("172.45.0.1"), false},49+ "IPv6 NAT64 64:ff9b::/96 (RFC 6052)": {net.ParseIP("64:ff9b::1"), false},50+ "IPv6 NAT64 embedded AWS IMDS 169.254.169.254": {net.ParseIP("64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe"), false},51+ "IPv6 Teredo 2001::/32 (RFC 4380)": {net.ParseIP("2001::1"), false},52+ "IPv6 6to4 2002::/16 (RFC 3056)": {net.ParseIP("2002::1"), false},53+ "IPv6 documentation 2001:db8::/32 (RFC 3849)": {net.ParseIP("2001:db8::1"), false},54+ }55+56+ for name, c := range cases {57+ t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T) {58+ assert.Equalf(t, c.allowed, hl.MatchHostOrIP("", c.ip), "ip=%v", c.ip)59+ })60+ }61+}Credit
This vulnerability was uncovered by @JLLeitschuh of the @braze-inc security team.
AI 심층 분석
공격 시나리오 · 재현 가능한 PoC 페이로드 · 즉시 적용 가능한 차단 패치를 한 번에 받아 보세요. 보안 운영팀이 그대로 점검·티켓팅에 쓸 수 있는 형태로 정리해 드립니다.
참고 자료 7
링크 내용 불러오는 중…