vulnerability / NVI-00009099 / Revision 1
charmbracelet/soft-serve HTTP responses disclose the existence and names of private repositories
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
5.3 medium
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve
source listed>= 0.5.0, < 0.12.3
## Summary Soft Serve answers Go's `?go-get=1` requests by walking up the requested path until it finds a repository, then rendering that repository's name and clone URL into a `go-import` meta tag. The walk checked that each candidate repository existed, but never that the caller could read it. A request for a path inside a private repository, such as `GET /secret/anything?go-get=1`, therefore returned `200` naming `secret` and its clone URL, even though `GET /secret?go-get=1` correctly returned `404`. The same `?go-get=1` exception in the HTTP access middleware also let requests reach the LFS and dumb-HTTP routes with the repository existence check skipped, where two LFS handlers dereferenced the missing repository and panicked. The same disclosure appears without `?go-get=1`. The Git and LFS routes answered a repository the caller could not read differently depending on whether it existed: an anonymous clone of a private repository got `401` while a missing one got `404`, and a signed-in user without access got the reverse pattern. Either way, one request confirms whether a guessed name is a private repository. This was found while fixing the go-get issue and is included here
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-fgxm-5hvv-x4vh ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.