GHSA-p3hw-mv63-rf9w CVE-2026-82253
gix's submodule name validation bypass + trust inheritance flaw enables path traversal and credential disclosure
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.66%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.44% 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')
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Summary
Submodule name validation bypass plus missing validation in production code paths allows path traversal via crafted .gitmodules. Combined with a trust inheritance flaw in Submodule::open(), this enables reading arbitrary git repository configs (including credentials) from traversed paths with full trust (CWE-22, CWE-200).
Details
Bug 1: Validation bypass in gix-validate/src/submodule.rs (lines 27-42)
The name() function uses name.find(b"..") which returns only the FIRST occurrence. If the first .. is embedded in a non-traversal context, the function returns Ok without checking subsequent ../ sequences:
pub fn name(name: &BStr) -> Result<&BStr, name::Error> {
match name.find(b"..") {
Some(pos) => {
let &b = name.get(pos + 2).ok_or(name::Error::ParentComponent)?;
if b == b'/' || b == b'\\' {
Err(name::Error::ParentComponent)
} else {
Ok(name) // Returns Ok without checking rest of string
}
}
None => Ok(name),
}
}
Bypass: a..b/../../../.git/ passes because find(b"..") returns position 1 (the .. in a..b), checks name[3] == b'b', and returns Ok. The real /../../../ is never checked.
Bug 2: Validation never called in production
gix_validate::submodule::name() has zero production callers (only test code). The names() iterator in gix-submodule/src/access.rs:29 explicitly documents it returns "unvalidated names."
git_dir() at gix/src/submodule/mod.rs:198-204 constructs filesystem paths from raw names:
pub fn git_dir(&self) -> PathBuf {
self.state.repo.common_dir().join("modules").join(gix_path::from_bstr(self.name()))
}
Bug 3: Trust inheritance bypass in Submodule::open()
At gix/src/submodule/mod.rs:270, open() clones the parent repository's options:
match crate::open_opts(self.git_dir_try_old_form()?, self.state.repo.options.clone()) {
The parent's options.git_dir_trust is Some(Trust::Full). At gix/src/open/repository.rs:103-104:
if options.git_dir_trust.is_none() {
options.git_dir_trust = gix_sec::Trust::from_path_ownership(&git_dir)?.into();
}
Since trust is already Some(Full), the ownership check is skipped entirely. The traversed path is opened with Trust::Full regardless of ownership, bypassing gitoxide's safe-directory protections.
PoC
Compiled and executed in Rust 1.94.1 --release mode. All bypass cases confirmed:
BYPASS a..b/../../../.git/ -> PASSED validation
git_dir = .git/modules/a..b/../../../.git/
normalized = .git/ (parent repo!)
BYPASS x..y/../../../.git/config -> PASSED validation
git_dir = .git/modules/x..y/../../../.git/config
normalized = .git/config
Attack chain
-
Attacker crafts a repository with
.gitmodules:[submodule "x..y/../../.."] path = innocent url = https://attacker.com/repo.git -
Victim clones the repository using a tool built on gitoxide.
-
When the tool iterates submodules and calls
submodule.open()orsubmodule.status():git_dir()returns.git/modules/x..y/../../..which resolves to the parent.git/open_opts()is called withTrust::Full(inherited from parent, ownership check skipped)- The parent's
.git/configis fully parsed
-
The returned
Repositoryobject exposes all config values from the traversed path:remote.origin.url(may containhttps://user:token@github.com/...)http.extraHeader(oftenAuthorization: Bearer <token>)credential.*sectionscore.sshCommand
-
Accessible via standard API:
repo.config_snapshot().string("http.extraHeader"),repo.find_remote("origin"), etc.
Impact
A crafted .gitmodules in a malicious repository causes gitoxide to open arbitrary git directories as submodule repositories with full trust, exposing their configuration including credentials. This is the same class of vulnerability as GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c (path traversal), but through the submodule name vector with an additional trust bypass.
The trust inheritance is the critical amplifier: without it, the traversed path would undergo ownership checks that could block the attack. With it, any git directory reachable via ../ is opened with full trust.
Honest limitations
- The traversed path must be a valid git directory (HEAD, objects/, refs/ must exist)
- The victim's tool must call
open()orstatus()on submodules (tools that only list submodules are not affected) - Credential exposure requires the target config to contain embedded credentials
- Submodule operations currently require explicit user action
Suggested fix
- Fix the validation to check ALL
..occurrences (iterate, not singlefind) - Call
gix_validate::submodule::name()ingit_dir()before constructing the path - Do NOT inherit
git_dir_trustfrom parent when opening submodule repos -- always re-derive trust from path ownership
Severity
High. Network vector (via clone), requires user interaction (submodule operations). The trust bypass enables credential disclosure from traversed git directories. Confidentiality impact is high.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| gix | < 0.83.0 |
0.83.0 |
| gix-validate | < 0.11.1 |
0.11.1 |
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.
gix crates.io → 0.83.0
- cargo
cargo update -p gix --precise 0.83.0
gix-validate crates.io → 0.11.1
- cargo
cargo update -p gix-validate --precise 0.11.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Active
- 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 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
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.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-q54r-jf2p-rfr2 gitoxide gix: untrusted .git/config disables filesystem .git-protection path checks via unfiltered protect_options() | High | Also affects gix |
| GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository | High | Also affects gix |
| GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository | High | Also affects gix |
| GHSA-f26g-jm89-4g65 gitoxide: CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration Bypass in gix_submodule::File::update() Enables Arbitrary Command Execution via .gitmodules | High | Also affects gix |
| GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6 gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks | Medium | Also affects gix |
| GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution | High | Also affects gix |
| GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9 gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices | Medium | Also affects gix |
| GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username | Medium | Also affects gix |
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