Skip to content

GHSA-7j5w-7r7x-9v27 CVE-2026-75913

CodeWhale: Argument Injection in `git_show` Tool Allows Arbitrary File Write Without Approval

Critical crates.ionpm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.48%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.23% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
Fix
Available
3 packages have a fixed version

Description

Maintainer resolution

The CodeWhale maintainers validated this report. The affected package ranges are recorded in the advisory metadata. Version 0.8.64 contains the fix in commit 9a34b5034d29f05d1f28fa61b04719ca6a741020. Users should upgrade to 0.8.64 or later. The original reporter analysis is preserved below.

Argument Injection in git_show Tool Allows Arbitrary File Write Without Approval

Overview

The git_show tool in DeepSeek-TUI executes git show with the model-supplied rev parameter passed unvalidated into the argv. git show honours the --output=<path> option, so a rev value beginning with --output= is interpreted as a flag rather than a revision. The tool is registered with ApprovalRequirement::Auto and declares ToolCapability::ReadOnly, so the write happens without a user prompt and contradicts the capability the catalog advertises to the model and the user.

This is the same vulnerability class as GHSA-72w5-pf8h-xfp4 (CVE-2026-45374): an auto-approved tool produces an effect outside the boundary the user consented to.

Impact

A malicious repository combined with prompt injection, the threat model already documented in CVE-2026-45311 (auto-loaded AGENTS.md is treated as instructions by the model) yields an unprompted arbitrary file write at the privilege of the user running DeepSeek-TUI.

Useful targets reachable as the invoking user:

  • ~/.ssh/authorized_keys
  • ~/.bashrc, ~/.zshrc, ~/.profile
  • ~/.gitconfig (chainable into RCE via core.editor)
  • ~/.config/**, ~/.aws/credentials, project source files

The written content is the git show rendering of HEAD commit hash, author/date header, indented commit message, and (when patch=true) diff hunks. The commit subject, body, author identity, and diff text are entirely attacker-controlled because the attacker owns the repository HEAD. The leading commit <hash> line prevents clean overwrite of formats that reject unknown tokens, but is silently ignorable in files parsed as comments-or-text (crontab, dotfiles consumed by tolerant readers) and is irrelevant for the destructive/DoS sub-case (clobbering ~/.ssh/authorized_keys locks the user out; clobbering a project file corrupts source).

Technical Details

Root Cause

crates/tui/src/tools/git_history.rs:

// L196-198
fn approval_requirement(&self) -> ApprovalRequirement {
    ApprovalRequirement::Auto
}

// L204-228 (excerpt)
async fn execute(&self, input: Value, context: &ToolContext) -> Result<ToolResult, ToolError> {
    let rev = required_str(&input, "rev")?;
    ...
    let mut args = vec![
        "show".to_string(),
        "--no-color".to_string(),
        "--no-ext-diff".to_string(),
    ];
    if patch { args.push(format!("--unified={unified}")); }
    else     { args.push("--no-patch".to_string()); }
    if stat  { args.push("--stat".to_string()); }
    args.push(rev.to_string());        // unvalidated, no `--end-of-options` sentinel
    ...
}

The JSON schema for rev is {"type": "string"} (L161-164) with no pattern, no enum, and no length cap. required_str performs no semantic validation. The argv has no --end-of-options separator between the trailing options and rev, so git's option parser keeps consuming flags from rev.

The same pattern in git_blame (L322-388) is tracked in a separate advisory.

Why --output Works

git show shares its option parser with git log / git diff, which expose --output=<file>. The implementation opens the path with O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC and writes the formatted output there. No permission check beyond the filesystem's own running as the user is sufficient to clobber anything the user owns.

Proof of Concept

The vulnerable argv assembled by the tool when invoked with {"rev": "--output=/home/victim/.bashrc"} is equivalent to:

git show --no-color --no-ext-diff --no-patch --stat --output=/home/victim/.bashrc

Reproduced against system git as a non-root user:

$ id
uid=1001(lowtest) gid=1001(lowtest) groups=1001(lowtest)

$ cd /tmp/lp && git init -q
$ echo a > a.txt && git add a.txt
$ git -c user.email=a@b -c user.name=a commit -q -m "lol"

$ git show --no-color --no-patch "--output=/home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered" HEAD
$ ls -la /home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lowtest lowtest 128 May 19 07:05 /home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered

End-to-end exploitation path:

  • Attacker publishes a repository whose AGENTS.md instructs the model to call git_show with rev set to a crafted --output= string targeting a file in the victim's home directory. The same auto-load pathway documented in CVE-2026-45311 applies.
  • Victim opens the repository in DeepSeek-TUI and issues any prompt that exercises the agent loop.
  • The model issues the tool call. Because approval_requirement() returns Auto, no approval UI is shown.
  • git show --output=<path> overwrites the target file with attacker-controlled commit metadata and diff text.

Remediation

Two changes in crates/tui/src/tools/git_history.rs:

Insert an end-of-options sentinel before rev so git stops parsing flags:

args.push("--end-of-options".to_string());
args.push(rev.to_string());

Reject rev values that begin with - (or restrict to a revision-shape regex ^[A-Za-z0-9._/^~@:{}-]+$ after the leading character check):

if rev.starts_with('-') {
    return Err(ToolError::invalid_input("rev must not start with '-'"));
}

A regression test mirroring run_tests_requires_user_approval (test_runner.rs:197) should assert that rev = "--output=/tmp/x" is rejected.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
codewhale-tui
>= 0.8.41, < 0.8.64
0.8.64
deepseek-tui
>= 0.3.27, <= 0.8.41
No fix yet

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
codewhale
>= 0.8.41, < 0.8.64
0.8.64
deepseek-tui
>= 0.3.27, < 0.8.41
0.8.41

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.

codewhale-tui crates.io → 0.8.64

cargo
cargo update -p codewhale-tui --precise 0.8.64

codewhale npm → 0.8.64

npm
npm install codewhale@0.8.64
yarn
yarn add codewhale@0.8.64
pnpm
pnpm add codewhale@0.8.64

deepseek-tui npm → 0.8.41

npm
npm install deepseek-tui@0.8.41
yarn
yarn add deepseek-tui@0.8.41
pnpm
pnpm add deepseek-tui@0.8.41

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High

CVSS 3.1 9.3

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

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.

CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
  • Architecture and Design: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • 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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-h539-c7r8-3xq4
CodeWhale: js_execution leaks parent environment to model context via missing env scrub
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-w7wx-5q49-r59w
CodeWhale: image_analyze follows workspace symlinks, leaking external file bytes
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-c6mw-8xh8-gpq6
CodeWhale: Argument Injection in `git_blame` Tool Allows Arbitrary File Read Without Approval
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-gx45-xrj5-g6c4
CodeWhale: Project config `allow_shell` override enables arbitrary shell command execution via cloned repository
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-62f5-cp2p-vq95
CodeWhale: Project config `instructions` override enables arbitrary file read into AI system prompt via cloned repository
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-wrj3-vj8c-784f
CodeWhale: rlm_eval auto-approves arbitrary Python execution, bypassing the user's approval policy (RCE)
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-g29h-pfmp-qp9r
CodeWhale: exec_shell_interact sends LLM-controlled input to a running shell without an approval prompt (privilege escalation)
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-6v2g-fpxh-pmmh
CodeWhale: SSRF‌ bypass - TOCTOU on DNS failure for DNS pinning
High Also affects codewhale
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