[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- The `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` APIs allow a user to link an issue in one repository as "depending upon" an issue in another repository. Forgejo's implementation had an incorrect permission check which would verify only that the user had write permissions on the issue being modified, and not on the issue it was linking to. Due to the incorrect permission check, it was possible to view limited information (the existence of, and title of) an issue in a private repository that the user does not have access to view. The permission check has been corrected to take into account visibility of the remote repository.
[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Fetching information about a release via the `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/releases/tag/{tag}` API endpoint did not check whether the release was a draft, allowing accessing to information about a draft release to users who could predict an upcoming release tag but didn't have access to view it. The missing check has been added, returning a 404 response when the release is not published.
[CVSS 6.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Forgejo's web interface allows deleting tags on a git repository through a form post. The endpoint for this form post had misconfigured middleware handlers which enforce security rights, allowing an anonymous user, or a logged-in user without the correct permissions, to delete tags on repositories that they did not own by injecting arbitrary internal tag identifiers into the form. The middleware handler configuration has been corrected.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When the head branch of a pull request matches a branch protection rule, the head branch should be able to be merged or rebased only according to the "Push" rules defined in the protection rule. An implementation error checked those branch protection rules in the context of the base repository rather than the head repository, allowing users with write access to the base repository to be considered able to push to the branch, bypassing the "Enable push" option's expected security control.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- An issue owner can manipulate form inputs to delete the content history of comments they did not create, as long as those comments are on issues that they own. Although comment content is not affected, the history of edits on the comment can be trimmed. The validation in the form handler was corrected.
[CVSS 5.1 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When a repository is configured with tag protection rules, it should not be possible for a user that is outside the whitelisted users or teams from modifying the protected tags. An incorrect parameter being passed to a security verification method allowed a user with write access to the repo to delete tags even if they were protected, as long as the tag was originally created by a user who is still authorized by the protection rules.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Security bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGZpeCBkZXBlbmRlbmN5IHJlcG8gcGVybXMgaW4gQ3JlYXRlL1JlbW92ZUlzc3VlRGVwZW5kZW5jeQ==-->fix(api): fix dependency repo perms in Create/RemoveIssueDependency<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 1 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGRyYWZ0IHJlbGVhc2VzIGNvdWxkIGJlIHJlYWQgYmVmb3JlIGJlaW5nIHB1Ymxpc2hlZA==-->fix(api): draft releases could be read before being published<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 2 --><!--description bWlzY29uZmlndXJlZCBzZWN1cml0eSBjaGVja3Mgb24gdGFnIGRlbGV0ZSB3ZWIgZm9ybQ==-->misconfigured security checks on tag delete web form<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 3 --><!--description aW5jb3JyZWN0IGxvZ2ljIGluICJVcGRhdGUgUFIiIGRpZCBub3QgZW5mb3JjZSBoZWFkIGJyYW5jaCBwcm90ZWN0aW9uIHJ1bGVzIGNvcnJlY3RseQ==-->incorrect logic in "Update PR" did not enforce head branch protection rules correctly<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 4 --><!--description aXNzdWUgb3duZXIgY2FuIGRlbGV0ZSBhbm90aGVyIHVzZXIncyBjb21tZW50J3MgZWRpdCBoaXN0b3J5IG9uIHNhbWUgaXNzdWU=-->issue owner can delete another user's comment's edit history on same issue<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 5 --><!--description dGFnIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gcnVsZXMgY2FuIGJlIGJ5cGFzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0YWcgZGVsZXRlIG9wZXJhdGlvbg==-->tag protection rules can be bypassed during tag delete operation<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Joshua Rogers <MegaManSec@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- I have seen multiple times where a test function tries to prepare the
testing environment more than once, this can lead to bugs and false
positives of testing code. I would attribute this to lack of
documentation on how to write integration tests.
- To detect such cases, keep track when we are in a prepared test
environment and fail when some testing code is tries to once again
prepare the test environment.
- The message is logged to the function call that is requesting to
prepare the test environment, for example: `change_default_branch_test.go:19: Cannot prepare a test environment if you are already in a test environment. This is a bug in your testing code.`
A example of what this will be able to catch, 6226f464ce:
```go
func TestFoo(t *testing.T) {
defer PrepareTestEnv(t)()
t.Run("Bar", func(t *testing.T) {
defer PrepareTestEnv(t)() // Should very likely be PrintCurrentTest
})
}
```
```go
func TestBar(t *testing.T) {
onGiteaRun(t, func(t *testing.T, _ *url.URL) {
defer PrepareTestEnv(t)() // Already called by onGiteaRun.
})
}
```
```go
func TestFooBar(t *testing.T) {
defer PrepareTestEnv(t)() // This will be called by onGiteaRun later on and very unlikely to do this before the call to onGiteaRun.
onGiteaRun(t, func(t *testing.T, _ *url.URL) {
// [...]
})
}
```
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8352
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- I was not able to find a reasoning in the pull request (https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/9784) for the existence of this `time.Sleep`. The best I could come up with during manual testing is that there's a brief moment where 'this pull request is missing fork information' is shown, this was caused by an incorrect condition.
- Added integration test.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7773
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
This commit allows chaning default branch update style through global
and repository settings. The setting affects "Update branch" button
in PR view (button shows when some commits are ahead of master branch).
When default update style is set to "rebase", dropdown button updates branch
by rebase by default. When update style is set to other value, dropdown button
updates branch by merge. Any of these actions may be selected using dropdown
in any case.
Signed-off-by: George Bartolomey <george@bh4.ru>
- This allows `CreateDeclarativeRepo` to be used by other testing
packages such as E2EE testing.
- Removes unused function in `services/webhook/sourcehut/builds_test.go`.
ForkRepository performs two different functions:
* The fork itself, if it does not already exist
* Updates and notifications after the fork is performed
The function is split to reflect that and otherwise unmodified.
The two function are given different names to:
* clarify which integration tests provides coverage
* distinguish it from the notification method by the same name
This PR will avoid load pullrequest.Issue twice in pull request list
page. It will reduce x times database queries for those WIP pull
requests.
Partially fix#29585
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit 62f8174aa2fae1481c7e17a6afcb731a5b178cd0)
Conflicts:
models/activities/notification_list.go
moved to models/activities/notification.go
These tests originate from Gitea, so may cause conflicts in the longer
run. But they use the same pattern, so transitioning them to the helper
is hopefully a benefit that offsets the risk.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit 2d475af494)
(cherry picked from commit a99c17729c)
Before: the concept "Content string" is used everywhere. It has some
problems:
1. Sometimes it means "base64 encoded content", sometimes it means "raw
binary content"
2. It doesn't work with large files, eg: uploading a 1G LFS file would
make Gitea process OOM
This PR does the refactoring: use "ContentReader" / "ContentBase64"
instead of "Content"
This PR is not breaking because the key in API JSON is still "content":
`` ContentBase64 string `json:"content"` ``
## Changes
- Adds the following high level access scopes, each with `read` and
`write` levels:
- `activitypub`
- `admin` (hidden if user is not a site admin)
- `misc`
- `notification`
- `organization`
- `package`
- `issue`
- `repository`
- `user`
- Adds new middleware function `tokenRequiresScopes()` in addition to
`reqToken()`
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` is used for each high-level api section
- _if_ a scoped token is present, checks that the required scope is
included based on the section and HTTP method
- `reqToken()` is used for individual routes
- checks that required authentication is present (but does not check
scope levels as this will already have been handled by
`tokenRequiresScopes()`
- Adds migration to convert old scoped access tokens to the new set of
scopes
- Updates the user interface for scope selection
### User interface example
<img width="903" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 55 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/654766ec-2143-4f59-9037-3b51600e32f3">
<img width="917" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 43 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/1ad64081-012c-4a73-b393-66b30352654c">
## tokenRequiresScopes Design Decision
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` was added to more reliably cover api routes.
For an incoming request, this function uses the given scope category
(say `AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization`) and the HTTP method (say
`DELETE`) and verifies that any scoped tokens in use include
`delete:organization`.
- `reqToken()` is used to enforce auth for individual routes that
require it. If a scoped token is not present for a request,
`tokenRequiresScopes()` will not return an error
## TODO
- [x] Alphabetize scope categories
- [x] Change 'public repos only' to a radio button (private vs public).
Also expand this to organizations
- [X] Disable token creation if no scopes selected. Alternatively, show
warning
- [x] `reqToken()` is missing from many `POST/DELETE` routes in the api.
`tokenRequiresScopes()` only checks that a given token has the correct
scope, `reqToken()` must be used to check that a token (or some other
auth) is present.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] The migration should be reviewed very carefully in order to
minimize access changes to existing user tokens.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] Link to api to swagger documentation, clarify what
read/write/delete levels correspond to
- [x] Review cases where more than one scope is needed as this directly
deviates from the api definition.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- For example:
```go
m.Group("/users/{username}/orgs", func() {
m.Get("", reqToken(), org.ListUserOrgs)
m.Get("/{org}/permissions", reqToken(), org.GetUserOrgsPermissions)
}, tokenRequiresScopes(auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryUser,
auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization),
context_service.UserAssignmentAPI())
```
## Future improvements
- [ ] Add required scopes to swagger documentation
- [ ] Redesign `reqToken()` to be opt-out rather than opt-in
- [ ] Subdivide scopes like `repository`
- [ ] Once a token is created, if it has no scopes, we should display
text instead of an empty bullet point
- [ ] If the 'public repos only' option is selected, should read
categories be selected by default
Closes#24501Closes#24799
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Tran <jon@allspice.io>
Co-authored-by: Kyle D <kdumontnu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
This PR creates an API endpoint for creating/updating/deleting multiple
files in one API call similar to the solution provided by
[GitLab](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/commits.html#create-a-commit-with-multiple-files-and-actions).
To archive this, the CreateOrUpdateRepoFile and DeleteRepoFIle functions
in files service are unified into one function supporting multiple files
and actions.
Resolves#14619
This PR adds the support for scopes of access tokens, mimicking the
design of GitHub OAuth scopes.
The changes of the core logic are in `models/auth` that `AccessToken`
struct will have a `Scope` field. The normalized (no duplication of
scope), comma-separated scope string will be stored in `access_token`
table in the database.
In `services/auth`, the scope will be stored in context, which will be
used by `reqToken` middleware in API calls. Only OAuth2 tokens will have
granular token scopes, while others like BasicAuth will default to scope
`all`.
A large amount of work happens in `routers/api/v1/api.go` and the
corresponding `tests/integration` tests, that is adding necessary scopes
to each of the API calls as they fit.
- [x] Add `Scope` field to `AccessToken`
- [x] Add access control to all API endpoints
- [x] Update frontend & backend for when creating tokens
- [x] Add a database migration for `scope` column (enable 'all' access
to past tokens)
I'm aiming to complete it before Gitea 1.19 release.
Fixes#4300
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
This PR adds a context parameter to a bunch of methods. Some helper
`xxxCtx()` methods got replaced with the normal name now.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
