Skip to content

GHSA-239g-whfq-7xj9 CVE-2026-87817 PYSEC-2026-3982

GitPython: Repository content can impersonate the git directory, leading to arbitrary code execution

High PyPI
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:

  1. git/repo/base.py:299 — isfile(curpath/gitdir) and isfile(curpath/commondir) and isfile(curpath/HEAD)
  2. git/repo/base.py:320 — is_git_dir(curpath)
  3. 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:

  1. Execute arbitrary commands via the tracked <root>/hooks/pre-commit when the victim calls index.commit().
  2. Read files outside the repository: the tracked <root>/config becomes the repository config and is parsed with merge_includes=True (git/repo/base.py:765), so [include] path = ~/.aws/credentials discloses the file. (Repo._config_reader still defaults merge_includes=True, so the hardening added in 3.1.59 for .gitmodules/GHSA-7833 does not cover this path.)
  3. 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_TREE is not a mitigation — git_dir is assigned and the discovery loop breaks before the environment is consulted.
  • Real git is unaffected; only GitPython mis-resolves the directory.

Remediation

  1. Test curpath/.git before the gitdir/commondir/HEAD triple and before is_git_dir(curpath).
  2. Resolve hook_path / _commit_hook_path / _get_validated_reflog_path through repo.common_dir.
  3. Containment-check commondir/gitdir contents before joining (reuse SymbolicReference._get_validated_path).
  4. Validate HEAD in is_git_dir (require ref: refs/... or a 40-hex sha).
  5. Pass merge_includes=False in Repo._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

PackageVulnerableFixed 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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
Is this in your code?

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