Kestrel
대시보드로 돌아가기
CVE-2026-58425MEDIUM· 4.3GHSA대응게시일: 2026. 07. 21.수정일: 2026. 07. 21.

Gitea: OAuth token introspection returns metadata of tokens issued to other clients (RFC 7662 section 4 violation)

위협 신호 · CVSS · EPSS · KEV

정기 패치· 높은 악용 신호 없음
CVSS
4.3medium

이론적 심각도 점수

EPSS

예측 데이터 없음

KEV
미등재

실측 악용 기록 없음

권장 대응 기한60일 이내CISA SSVC 기준

계획된 패치 주기 내 조치(60일 이내)

외부 노출· KEV 미등재 · 자동화 어려움 · 부분 영향 · 외부 노출

CVSS 벡터 · 메트릭

악용 경로
공격 벡터네트워크
공격 복잡도낮음
필요 권한낮음
사용자 상호작용불필요
범위불변
영향
기밀성 영향낮음
무결성 영향없음
가용성 영향없음
버전별 점수
CVSS 3.14.3MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

상세 설명

Live reproduction against Gitea 1.26.1

Setup: Gitea 1.26.1 docker stack with two users (admin and victim) and two OAuth applications owned by different users:

text
1Client A: id=5dda747d-7fdd-4694-85ff-ce4f893ce51e owner=admin
2Client B: id=588f778f-4a41-4914-ae01-85d776c369db owner=victim

admin runs an OAuth flow against Client A and obtains an access token. victim (acting through Client B's credentials) calls the introspection endpoint with Client A's access token in the body:

bash
1$ curl -s -u "$B_ID:$B_SEC" -X POST http://localhost:3001/login/oauth/introspect \
2 --data-urlencode "token=$CLIENT_A_ACCESS_TOKEN"
3{
4 "active": true,
5 "username": "admin",
6 "iss": "http://localhost:3001",
7 "sub": "1",
8 "aud": [
9 "5dda747d-7fdd-4694-85ff-ce4f893ce51e"
10 ]
11}

Note the aud claim: the server explicitly states the token's audience is Client A, yet returns the full metadata to Client B. Per RFC 7662 section 4 ("The authorization server SHOULD also limit the information it discloses about each token to the resources that are authorized to receive it") the introspection result must not be disclosed to clients other than the token's audience.

Full reproduction script attached as poc.sh. Full session log attached as live_run.log.

Root cause

routers/web/auth/oauth2_provider.go:130-175 IntrospectOAuth:

text
1func IntrospectOAuth(ctx *context.Context) {
2 clientIDValid := false
3 authHeader := ctx.Req.Header.Get("Authorization")
4 if parsed, ok := httpauth.ParseAuthorizationHeader(authHeader); ok && parsed.BasicAuth != nil {
5 clientID, clientSecret := parsed.BasicAuth.Username, parsed.BasicAuth.Password
6 app, err := auth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByClientID(ctx, clientID)
7 if err != nil && !auth.IsErrOauthClientIDInvalid(err) {
8 log.Error("Error retrieving client_id: %v", err)
9 ctx.HTTPError(http.StatusInternalServerError)
10 return
11 }
12 clientIDValid = err == nil && app.ValidateClientSecret([]byte(clientSecret))
13 }
14 if !clientIDValid {
15 ctx.Resp.Header().Set("WWW-Authenticate", `Basic realm="Gitea OAuth2"`)
16 ctx.PlainText(http.StatusUnauthorized, "no valid authorization")
17 return
18 }
19
20 var response struct {
21 Active bool `json:"active"`
22 Scope string `json:"scope,omitempty"`
23 Username string `json:"username,omitempty"`
24 jwt.RegisteredClaims
25 }
26
27 form := web.GetForm(ctx).(*forms.IntrospectTokenForm)
28 token, err := oauth2_provider.ParseToken(form.Token, oauth2_provider.DefaultSigningKey)
29 if err == nil {
30 grant, err := auth.GetOAuth2GrantByID(ctx, token.GrantID)
31 if err == nil && grant != nil {
32 app, err := auth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByID(ctx, grant.ApplicationID) // shadows the introspecting client's `app`
33 if err == nil && app != nil {
34 response.Active = true
35 response.Scope = grant.Scope
36 response.RegisteredClaims = oauth2_provider.NewJwtRegisteredClaimsFromUser(app.ClientID, grant.UserID, nil)
37 }
38 if user, err := user_model.GetUserByID(ctx, grant.UserID); err == nil {
39 response.Username = user.Name
40 }
41 }
42 }
43
44 ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, response)
45}

The handler:

  1. Authenticates the introspecting client via HTTP Basic (app.ValidateClientSecret). The local variable app at this point references the introspecting client.
  2. Loads the grant for form.Token via auth.GetOAuth2GrantByID(ctx, token.GrantID).
  3. Reassigns app to auth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByID(ctx, grant.ApplicationID) (line 162). After this point, app is the token's issuing client, not the introspecting client.
  4. Populates response from the reassigned app and the grant.

There is no comparison between the introspecting client's id and grant.ApplicationID. The endpoint will return metadata for any token whose JWT signature validates, regardless of which client is asking.

Patch parity with PR #37704

The same file contains two recently-hardened handlers in commit 7e54514316 ("fix(oauth): bind token exchanges to the original client request", PR #37704, 2026-05-15) that added exactly this missing check:

handleRefreshToken (routers/web/auth/oauth2_provider.go:561-568):

text
1if grant.ApplicationID != app.ID {
2 handleAccessTokenError(ctx, oauth2_provider.AccessTokenError{
3 ErrorCode: oauth2_provider.AccessTokenErrorCodeInvalidGrant,
4 ErrorDescription: "refresh token belongs to a different client",
5 })
6 return
7}

handleAuthorizationCode (routers/web/auth/oauth2_provider.go:640-647):

text
1if authorizationCode.RedirectURI != "" && form.RedirectURI != authorizationCode.RedirectURI {
2 handleAccessTokenError(ctx, oauth2_provider.AccessTokenError{ ... })
3 return
4}
5// later in the same function:
6if authorizationCode.Grant.ApplicationID != app.ID {
7 handleAccessTokenError(ctx, ...)
8 return
9}

IntrospectOAuth shares the same problem space (it consumes a token bound to a grant whose application may differ from the requesting client) but did not receive the parallel patch.

Impact

Any authenticated OAuth client can call /login/oauth/introspect with another client's access or refresh token in the body and learn:

  • active (true or false). A token-validity oracle that survives across application boundaries without consuming or "using" the token.
  • scope. The scope of the token.
  • username. The user the token belongs to.
  • iss, sub, aud. Standard JWT registered claims. aud reveals the issuing client_id, making it obvious to the introspecting client that the token does not belong to them. The server returns the data anyway.

Practical scenarios:

  1. Stolen-token validation oracle. An attacker who exfiltrates an access token from logs, traffic capture, browser memory, or a leaked dump can verify the token is still active before using it for higher-noise actions like API calls. The probe does not consume the grant counter, so it does not appear in audit trails of "actual token use".
  2. Cross-tenant metadata enumeration. Any user can register their own OAuth application on a Gitea instance (web UI: /user/settings/applications). The attacker uses their own valid credentials to introspect tokens belonging to other tenants' clients. They learn which user/scope each token corresponds to without ever using it.
  3. Token-confusion reconnaissance. Before chaining a separate vulnerability (e.g., a future token-replay or session-fixation bug), the attacker can use introspection to map the token universe.

Suggested remediation

A one-line fix matching the PR #37704 pattern:

text
1 grant, err := auth.GetOAuth2GrantByID(ctx, token.GrantID)
2 if err == nil && grant != nil {
3+ if grant.ApplicationID != app.ID {
4+ // do not reveal token metadata for tokens not issued to this client
5+ ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, response) // response is zero-valued, active=false
6+ return
7+ }
8 app, err := auth.GetOAuth2ApplicationByID(ctx, grant.ApplicationID)

Or, equivalently, replace the inner app reassignment with a check that uses the introspecting client's app.ClientID directly for the response claims.

Affected versions

Confirmed at Gitea v1.26.1 (latest release, 2026-04-24, docker image gitea/gitea:1.26.1). The vulnerable code path has been in place since the introspection endpoint was introduced; the recent PR #37704 / #37706 OAuth hardening landed in master May 15-16 2026 but did not touch this endpoint.

Attachments

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.