GHSA-3f7w-8rr8-f37f CVE-2026-73620 PYSEC-2026-3949
GitPython: Unguarded git option forwarding in IndexFile.checkout() and TagReference.create() enables arbitrary file overwrite and arbitrary file read
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.57%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.43% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
- Fix
3.1.57- Upgrade gitpython to this version or later
Description
Target: gitpython-developers/GitPython
Tested: HEAD 07e80555 (2026-07-25), latest release 3.1.55, git version 2.50.1
Reported instances: 2 exploitable, from a sweep of 14 unguarded call sites
Summary
GitPython blocks dangerous git options through Git.check_unsafe_options(), gated per method by an allow_unsafe_options parameter. That guard is applied per call site, so any API that forwards **kwargs into a git command without calling it passes caller-controlled options straight to git.
A mechanical sweep of every method that forwards **kwargs into a .git.<command>(...) call found 14 sites with no guard. Two reach a git option that takes a filesystem path:
| # | Call site | git option | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IndexFile.checkout() → git checkout-index |
--prefix=<path> |
arbitrary file overwrite with repository-controlled content |
| 2 | TagReference.create() → git tag |
-F <file> / --file=<file> |
arbitrary file read, returned in-band |
This is the same defect class already fixed in Commit.count() (GHSA-p538-c434-8v24), Repo.archive() and Git.ls_remote() (GHSA-956x-8gvw-wg5v). Both instances below are still present at HEAD.
Instance 1 — IndexFile.checkout(): arbitrary file overwrite
git/index/base.py:1210 accepts **kwargs and forwards them with no guard:
def checkout(self, paths=None, force=False, fprogress=lambda *args: None, **kwargs):
...
proc = self.repo.git.checkout_index(*args, **kwargs) # line 1331
...
proc = self.repo.git.checkout_index(args, **kwargs) # line 1349
There is no allow_unsafe_options parameter and no check_unsafe_options() call in the method.
git checkout-index accepts --prefix=<string>, prepended to every output path. It is not confined to the working tree, so an absolute prefix writes tracked file contents anywhere the process can write, and -f overwrites what is already there.
Reproduction
from git import Repo
Repo("/path/to/repo").index.checkout(prefix="/tmp/target_dir/", a=True, f=True)
Observed (poc/poc_checkout_index.py) — no exception raised, files land outside the repository:
[ALLOWED] no UnsafeOptionError raised
files written outside the repo: ['f.txt']
f.txt: 'hi\n'
Overwrite of a pre-existing file (poc/poc_ci_overwrite.py) — the victim file held ORIGINAL-DO-NOT-CLOBBER\n before the call:
[ALLOWED] no exception
victim content now: 'hi\n'
OVERWRITTEN: True
Why this rates High
Both halves of the write are attacker-influenced:
- Destination — the
prefixkwarg. - Content — the bytes written are repository blobs, so anyone who can land a file in the repository (a pull-request branch, a mirrored or untrusted repository, an agent-cloned repository) controls exactly what is written.
Commit a file named authorized_keys, .bashrc, config or post-checkout, choose the matching prefix (~/.ssh/, ~/, .git/hooks/), and the write becomes code execution as the service account.
For comparison within this project: GHSA-fjr4-x663-mwxc (arbitrary file overwrite via git diff --output) is rated High, and GHSA-p538-c434-8v24 (arbitrary file truncation via git rev-list --output) is rated Medium. --prefix supplies full content control, so it sits at or above the former.
Instance 2 — TagReference.create(): arbitrary file read
git/refs/tag.py:88 forwards **kwargs into git tag with no guard, and the signature advertises the passthrough:
def create(cls, repo, path, reference="HEAD", logmsg=None, force=False, **kwargs):
"""...
:param kwargs:
Additional keyword arguments to be passed to :manpage:`git-tag(1)`.
"""
git tag accepts -F <file> / --file=<file>, which reads the tag message from an arbitrary path. The annotated tag object stores that content and GitPython returns it to the caller via TagReference.tag.message, so the file contents come back in-band.
Reproduction
from git import Repo
from git.refs.tag import TagReference
t = TagReference.create(Repo("/path/to/repo"), "x", force=True, a=True, F="/etc/passwd")
print(t.tag.message)
Observed (poc/poc_tag_F.py), reading a canary file outside the repository:
[ALLOWED] no UnsafeOptionError raised
>>> tag message recovered from arbitrary path: 'TAG-READ-CANARY-98765\nsecond-line-secret'
Impact is a read at the privileges of the process. I am not claiming code execution for this instance. The signing options (-s, -u/--local-user) do invoke gpg from the same unguarded kwargs, but I did not develop that into command execution and make no claim about it.
Sweep results — the other 12 sites
Reported so the fix can be scoped once rather than per report. poc/sweep.py reproduces this list.
| Call site | git command | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
IndexFile.from_tree() |
read-tree |
--index-output=<path> looked reachable but is neutralised: GitPython appends its own --index-output after the caller's kwargs and git honours the last occurrence. Verified — victim file unchanged (poc/poc_readtree.py) |
IndexFile.remove() |
rm |
--pathspec-from-file only reads a pathspec; no write or disclosure primitive found |
IndexFile.move() |
mv |
same |
HEAD.reset() |
reset |
same |
HEAD.checkout() |
checkout |
same |
Head.delete(), RemoteReference.delete() |
branch |
no path-taking option found |
Repo.merge_base() |
merge-base |
no path-taking option found |
Repo._get_untracked_files() |
status |
no path-taking option found |
Remote.set_url(), Remote.create(), Remote.update() |
remote |
URL handling already addressed by GHSA-94p4-4cq8-9g67 |
Suggested remediation
Immediate: add allow_unsafe_options: bool = False to both methods and gate Git._option_candidates(args, kwargs) against new lists — unsafe_git_checkout_index_options = ["--prefix"] (consider --temp) and unsafe_git_tag_options = ["--file", "-F"] (consider -s, -u/--local-user, --cleanup) — matching the pattern used in Repo.archive() and Commit.count().
Structural: this defect has now been fixed four times in four places (Repo.archive(), Git.ls_remote(), Commit.count(), and the two here), because the guard is opt-in per method: every new **kwargs-forwarding API starts unguarded and stays that way until someone reports it. Enforcing the check centrally in Git._call_process() — each git invocation consults a per-command unsafe-option table unless the caller opts out — would make new call sites safe by default rather than by review, and would close the remaining sites in the table above at the same time.
Disclosure
Reported privately via GitHub private vulnerability reporting.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| gitpython | < 3.1.57 |
3.1.57 |
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 → 3.1.57
- pip
pip install --upgrade "gitpython>=3.1.57"- poetry
poetry add "gitpython>=3.1.57"- uv
uv add "gitpython>=3.1.57"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- 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 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: 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.
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: 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 all access to files within a particular directory. 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.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Implementation: Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59).
- Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
- Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
- Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
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