What is CVE-2026-58442?

CVE-2026-58442 is Repository migration SSRF via multi-answer DNS allow-list bypass. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as SSRF mapped to CWE-200 CWE-200; CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-58442. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-58442 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-58442. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with cloud metadata access logs, egress proxy logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-58442 using CVSS null, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

Workarounds are not confirmed from current sources. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

SSRF

CVE-2026-58442

CVE-2026-58442 — Repository migration SSRF via multi-answer DNS allow-list bypass

Repository migration SSRF via multi-answer DNS allow-list bypass

Published Aug 13, 2026Updated Aug 13, 2026Sources: NVD, Gitea (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Gitea

2 products listed

CVSS base

Unscored

no source published a base score

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade code.gitea.io/gitea to 1.27.0 or later (go advisory GHSA-h2x6-g7q6-344v).

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
Gitea	Gitea Open Source Git Server	0 to <= 1.26.4	Vulnerable
go	code.gitea.io/gitea	< 1.27.0	Vulnerable

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
6.5	CVSS 3.1	medium	—	—	GHSA

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Read Application Data
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands::

CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

Read Application Data::

Mitigation: Compartmentalize the system to have safe areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.::

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-200
CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-643 · Identify Shared Files/Directories on SystemCAPEC-313 · Passive OS FingerprintingCAPEC-293 · Traceroute Route EnumerationCAPEC-22 · Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-13 · Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-576 · Group Permission FootprintingCAPEC-224 · FingerprintingCAPEC-116 · ExcavationCAPEC-472 · Browser FingerprintingCAPEC-292 · Host DiscoveryCAPEC-574 · Services FootprintingCAPEC-497 · File Discovery

T1562.003Impair Defenses: Impair Command History Logging
T1574.006Hijack Execution Flow: Dynamic Linker Hijacking
T1574.007Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

cloud metadata access logsegress proxy logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Initial · CVE published
Aug 13, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-h2x6-g7q6-344v published (medium)
Jul 21, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

1×CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 13, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

4 on the record

blog.gitea.com/gitea-1.27.0-is-released/
Vendor Advisory
github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.27.0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST, Mitre
github.com/go-gitea/gitea/security/advisories/GHSA-h2x6-g7q6-344v
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST, Mitre
github.com/advisories/GHSA-h2x6-g7q6-344v
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

Giteaevery CVE for this vendor
goevery CVE for this vendor
SSRFsame class
CWE-200other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-58442 is Repository migration SSRF via multi-answer DNS allow-list bypass, a unscored vulnerability affecting Gitea Open Source Git Server, code.gitea.io/gitea from Gitea, go. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-58442. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-58442. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS null describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.