CVE-2026-118386

Read full description

Workflows triggered by a pull request review were read from the commit named in the review's `commit_id`, while the fork restrictions were decided by the reviewed pull request, and the commit was not checked to belong to that pull request. A user with read access to a repository could place a commit of their own in it, through a fork pull request or an AGit push, and submit a review naming that commit on a pull request whose head branch is in the same repository. On instances with a runner serving the repository, the attacker's workflow then ran without approval, received the Actions secrets of the repository and its owner, and got a `GITEA_TOKEN` with write access to the repository. Review-triggered workflows now run on the pull request head.

CVSS — (—)

Attention and evidence

HYPE SCORE

0.0/10

REALITY · THREAT PRIORITY

0.0–3.5/10

Missing inputs: range of priority

Evidence confidence: Insufficient evidence

Why this priority?

Fresh EPSS: 0.15%: +0.00

Technical severity unavailable

General review priority, not probability, victim count or asset-specific risk. A range covers missing CVSS/EPSS inputs within the current evidence state.

Sources: 1 documents and public datasets.

Hype components

Headline sample (25%)

0/100

Press, 30 days (60%)

0/100

Grounded branding (15%)

0/100

HYPE TOTAL0/100

Sources and documents

Latest Vulnerabilities

Technical advisory · 01 Nov 2026, 10:18 · CVE-2026-118386 - Gitea Actions fork workflow trust through pull request review commit

Score evolution

● Hype ● Reality

Earlier evidence-support scores are retained in history; this chart shows only the current priority definition.

First record: hype 0.0 · reality 0.0 (2026-11-02 15:14). The curve appears once the score changes.

Public exploit evidence

Public exploit entries / repo candidates

Evidence context and dated references

Reality is general threat/review priority, combining observed exploitation, CVSS severity and fresh EPSS. Evidence confidence is separate. This is not calibrated risk, a victim count or an asset-specific assessment. A range reflects missing numeric inputs. Published 8 days ago. Exploitation evidence usually takes weeks to show up: a low reality score can mean there is no data yet, not that the flaw is mild.

Evidence in context

Confidence in exploitation evidence: Insufficient evidence
Priority basis: Exploitation in attacks unconfirmed; severity unavailable; EPSS 0.1%
Attention, last 30 days: 0 distinct story titles; 0 press documents; 0 publisher domains.
Technical potential: Not available as a validated CVSS vector..
Observed activity: No exploitation observation is recorded.
Known scale: Not quantified.
Evidence confidence basis: Insufficient evidence

Score evaluated: 2026-11-05 13:59:55.835577+00:00 · EPSS snapshot: 2026-11-05T12:03:04Z

Source event timeline

Published

01 Nov 2026, 09:47

Score calculated

05 Nov 2026, 13:59