GHSA-239g-whfq-7xj9 CVE-2026-87817 PYSEC-2026-3982
GitPython: Repository content can impersonate the git directory, leading to arbitrary code execution
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.42%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 36.26% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-427 Uncontrolled Search Path Element
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
3.1.60- Upgrade gitpython to this version or later
Description
Summary
Repo.__init__ decides which directory is the git directory by testing candidate paths in an order that
considers the real .git last. Two earlier tests can be satisfied by ordinary tracked files. Git
reserves only the literal name .git, so HEAD, objects/, refs/, config, gitdir, commondir
and hooks/ at a repository root are all legal tracked content.
Consequently, after a victim opens or clones an attacker's repository, GitPython resolves git_dir to
the working-tree root while real git correctly resolves <root>/.git. Everything GitPython then
treats as "inside the git directory" is attacker-authored content — including hooks/, which it
executes.
CVE-2026-87817
Affected code (3.1.59)
The discovery loop in git/repo/base.py tests, in order:
git/repo/base.py:299—isfile(curpath/gitdir)andisfile(curpath/commondir)andisfile(curpath/HEAD)git/repo/base.py:320—is_git_dir(curpath)git/repo/base.py:341—dotgit = osp.join(curpath, ".git")← the real git dir, considered last
is_git_dir (git/repo/fun.py:60) requires only that objects/ and refs/ are directories and that
HEAD is a file; HEAD's contents are never parsed. The hook path is resolved from
index.repo.git_dir (git/index/fun.py:73), i.e. the mis-resolved directory.
Proof of concept
Requires only pip install GitPython==3.1.59. Full script attached as poc1_rce.py; it runs entirely
in a temp directory and the payload only writes a marker file.
Attacker repository — four ordinary tracked files at the root:
| path | mode | content |
|---|---|---|
gitdir |
100644 | .git\n |
commondir |
100644 | .git\n |
HEAD |
100644 | ref: refs/heads/master\n |
hooks/pre-commit |
100755 | #!/bin/sh + payload |
Victim — two ordinary calls:
repo = git.Repo.clone_from(url, dst) # or git.Repo(dst)
repo.index.commit("automated commit") # code execution happens here
Observed on the PyPI release 3.1.59 (Linux and Windows):
real git says the git dir is : /tmp/.../victim/.git
GitPython says it is : /tmp/.../victim <- shadowed
attacker's hook executed : True
git fsck : (clean)
The pre-commit hook runs at git/index/base.py:1201, before write_tree(), so it fires even though
the commit later fails.
Impact
A service that opens or clones an untrusted repository with GitPython — a CI runner building a fork pull request, a code-scanning/SBOM service, a mirror, a dependency bot, an AI code-review/agent tool — can be made to:
- Execute arbitrary commands via the tracked
<root>/hooks/pre-commitwhen the victim callsindex.commit(). - Read files outside the repository: the tracked
<root>/configbecomes the repository config and is parsed withmerge_includes=True(git/repo/base.py:765), so[include] path = ~/.aws/credentialsdiscloses the file. (Repo._config_readerstill defaultsmerge_includes=True, so the hardening added in 3.1.59 for.gitmodules/GHSA-7833 does not cover this path.) - Write a config file to an attacker-chosen directory via an absolute tracked
commondir.
Delivery is silent: git clone exits 0, git fsck (including --strict, and with
transfer.fsckObjects/fetch.fsckObjects=true) reports nothing, and the clone passes every read-only
probe (head.commit, branches, is_dirty(), untracked_files, iter_commits) because a tracked
commondir of .git pins common_dir to the real .git.
Threat model / preconditions
- Attacker controls the content of a repository the victim opens or clones with GitPython (public repo, fork PR, mirrored dependency).
- For code execution, the victim performs a commit via GitPython's native
index.commit(). For the file-read impact, opening the repo and reading config is enough. GIT_WORK_TREEis not a mitigation —git_diris assigned and the discovery loop breaks before the environment is consulted.- Real git is unaffected; only GitPython mis-resolves the directory.
Remediation
- Test
curpath/.gitbefore thegitdir/commondir/HEADtriple and beforeis_git_dir(curpath). - Resolve
hook_path/_commit_hook_path/_get_validated_reflog_paththroughrepo.common_dir. - Containment-check
commondir/gitdircontents before joining (reuseSymbolicReference._get_validated_path). - Validate
HEADinis_git_dir(requireref: refs/...or a 40-hex sha). - Pass
merge_includes=FalseinRepo._config_reader(git/repo/base.py:765).
Note for the maintainers
Commit 406b98e1 (2026-05-31, "respect core.hooksPath for commit hooks") resolved the hook path via
git rev-parse --git-path, which is immune because git rediscovers the true .git. Commit 9bc287a2
(2026-07-20) reverted it to avoid an unconditional rev-parse dependency — reintroducing the exec step.
Measured at each commit with the healthy-looking layout: 406b98e1 → hook did not fire; 9bc287a2 …
3.1.59 → hook fired.
Scope note
Only the repository-root case is reported: where a real .git exists, git prefers it, and GitPython
does not. A fake git dir in a subdirectory fools real git too, so that variant is out of scope as a
general ecosystem hazard rather than a GitPython defect.
###POC Files : poc1_rce.py poc2_file_read.py
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| gitpython | < 3.1.60 |
3.1.60 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
gitpython PyPI → 3.1.60
- pip
pip install --upgrade "gitpython>=3.1.60"- poetry
poetry add "gitpython>=3.1.60"- uv
uv add "gitpython>=3.1.60"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-427: Uncontrolled Search Path Element
The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Hard-code the search path to a set of known-safe values (such as system directories), or only allow them to be specified by the administrator in a configuration file. Do not allow these settings to be modified by an external party. Be careful to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-426 and CWE-428.
- Implementation: When invoking other programs, specify those programs using fully-qualified pathnames. While this is an effective approach, code that uses fully-qualified pathnames might not be portable to other systems that do not use the same pathnames. The portability can be improved by locating the full-qualified paths in a centralized, easily-modifiable location within the source code, and having the code refer to these paths.
- Implementation: Remove or restrict all environment settings before invoking other programs. This includes the PATH environment variable, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and other settings that identify the location of code libraries, and any application-specific search paths.
- Implementation: Check your search path before use and remove any elements that are likely to be unsafe, such as the current working directory or a temporary files directory. Since this is a denylist approach, it might not be a complete solution.
- Implementation: Use other functions that require explicit paths. Making use of any of the other readily available functions that require explicit paths is a safe way to avoid this problem. For example, system() in C does not require a full path since the shell can take care of finding the program using the PATH environment variable, while execl() and execv() require a full path.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/security/advisories/GHSA-239g-whfq-7xj9
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/pull/2218
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/commit/c7cf4d13b1ed0a2e70f2a1f3c6b4fc…
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/releases/tag/3.1.60
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/gitpython/PYSEC-2026-3982.yaml
- vulncheck.com/advisories/gitpython-before-3.1.60-remote-code-execution-via-git-dir…
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-83vg-56qc-22m7 GitPython validates a submodule's ".git" path only after cloning into it (RCE) | High | Also affects gitpython |
| GHSA-gq48-pqfc-9p58 GitPython: Submodule.move() follows an attacker-committed intermediate symlink outside the worktree | Medium | Also affects gitpython |
| GHSA-23mf-xhv8-69c2 GitPython: arbitrary file read via attacker-controlled branch name in `Head.checkout()` (incomplete fix of CVE-2026-78679) | High | Also affects gitpython |
| GHSA-f9j4-qggq-h239 GitPython Remote.pull() refspec bypasses the --upload-pack unsafe-option guard, enabling arbitrary command execution | Critical | Also affects gitpython |
| GHSA-w8jc-g24h-crhw GitPython command wrappers omit unsafe protocol and option checks | High | Also affects gitpython |
| GHSA-m64x-33q8-m5h7 GitPython parse_actor_and_date() is vulnerable to quadratic backtracking on malformed identity lines | High | Also affects gitpython |
| GHSA-fx3j-rwgx-fr94 GitPython: separate_git_dir leaks env vars via crafted .gitmodules submodule name | High | Also affects gitpython |
| GHSA-59cr-6r3x-644w GitPython submodule update path traversal can write outside the repository | Medium | Also affects gitpython |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor