Skip to content

GHSA-fjr4-x663-mwxc CVE-2026-73624 PYSEC-2026-3995

GitPython: Arbitrary file overwrite via git diff --output argument injection in Diffable.diff (key- and value-controlled)

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.55%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 46.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
Fix
3.1.54
Upgrade gitpython to this version or later

Description

Summary

Diffable.diff() forwards **kwargs straight into diff/diff_tree with no check_unsafe_options guard. Diffable is mixed into Commit, Tree, IndexFile, and Submodule, giving a broad surface. git diff --output=<path> writes real patch content to an attacker-chosen path, enabling arbitrary file overwrite.

Root Cause

diff.py:188-283 builds and runs the diff command with no check_unsafe_options anywhere in the method (grep-confirmed). Additionally diff.py:265 does args.insert(0, other), placing the caller-supplied other ref BEFORE the -- separator, so a value of --output=/path is parsed by git as an option — a value-only control path requiring no kwarg key.

Impact

Overwrite/corrupt any file at process privilege with attacker-chosen path (e.g. ~/.ssh/authorized_keys, configs, lockfiles). Content is real diff/patch bytes (attacker-influenced). Per the skill's rule, controlling WHICH file is overwritten = I:H regardless of content constraints.

Proof of Concept

# Key-control:
commit.diff(other_commit, output='/home/app/.ssh/authorized_keys')   # victim overwritten with diff (105 bytes verified)
# Value-control (attacker controls only the ref string):
commit.diff(other='--output=/home/app/.ssh/authorized_keys')          # 14-byte victim -> 146 bytes of diff-tree output

Attack Chain

  1. Entry (value-control): commit.diff(other=<user ref>) with other = "--output=/home/app/.ssh/authorized_keys". Guard: none in Diffable.diff. Bypass proof: no check_unsafe_options in the method body (grep); other inserted pre--- at diff.py:265.
  2. Sink: git diff-tree <sha> --output=/home/app/.ssh/authorized_keys -r ... -> git opens+truncates the target then writes diff content. Impact: overwrite/corrupt any file at process privilege (attacker chooses the path). Verified argv and victim overwrite live.

Bypass Evidence

Live-verified on HEAD (tag 3.1.53): both key-control (output=) and value-control (other='--output=...') overwrote a victim file with real diff-tree content; argv confirmed ['git','diff-tree','<sha>','--output=/victim','-r',...]. This is the same value-control model GHSA-956x deemed fix-worthy for iter_commits(rev='--output=') — but diff is a distinct, unguarded sink NOT touched by that fix.

Affected Versions

<= 3.1.53

Suggested Fix

Add check_unsafe_options to Diffable.diff (mirroring iter_commits/archive), and/or place --end-of-options before the other ref so it cannot be parsed as an option.


Reported by zx (Jace) — GitHub: @manus-use

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
gitpython
< 3.1.54
3.1.54

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 → 3.1.54

pip
pip install --upgrade "gitpython>=3.1.54"
poetry
poetry add "gitpython>=3.1.54"
uv
uv add "gitpython>=3.1.54"

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-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-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