CVE-2023-25815VulnerabilityPublished 25 Apr 2023Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-25815: git · Path Traversal

Affects gitSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low : upgrade to 2.40.1 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 57% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.40.1

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Apr 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade git-for-windows/git to 2.40.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgit-for-windows/git`pkg:github/git-for-windows/git`Other threats	Affected <2.40.1	Fixed in 2.40.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade all Git for Windows installations to version 2.40.1 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. 2. Restrict permissions on the root C:\ directory to prevent non-administrative users from creating folders, thereby blocking the attack vector. 3. Create an empty C:\mingw64 directory on Windows machines to preempt attacker folder creation. 4. Avoid using shared Windows accounts or multi-user environments where low-privilege users have write access to C:\. 5. Educate users and developers to be cautious of unexpected or unusual Git messages, especially those prompting external actions like visiting websites. 6. Implement endpoint monitoring to detect unauthorized folder creation in C:\ and suspicious file placements. 7. Integrate security awareness training focused on social engineering risks related to development tools. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on environment hardening and user behavior specific to this vulnerability.

Description

In Git for Windows, the Windows port of Git, no localized messages are shipped with the installer. As a consequence, Git is expected not to localize messages at all, and skips the gettext initialization. However, due to a change in MINGW-packages, the `gettext()` function's implicit initialization no longer uses the runtime prefix but uses the hard-coded path `C:\mingw64\share\locale` to look for localized messages. And since any authenticated user has the permission to create folders in `C:\` (and since `C:\mingw64` does not typically exist), it is possible for low-privilege users to place fake messages in that location where `git.exe` will pick them up in version 2.40.1. This vulnerability is relatively hard to exploit and requires social engineering. For example, a legitimate message at the end of a clone could be maliciously modified to ask the user to direct their web browser to a malicious website, and the user might think that the message comes from Git and is legitimate. It does require local write access by the attacker, though, which makes this attack vector less likely. Version 2.40.1 contains a patch for this issue. Some workarounds are available. Do not work on a Windows machine with shared accounts, or alternatively create a `C:\mingw64` folder and leave it empty. Users who have administrative rights may remove the permission to create folders in `C:\`.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability primarily poses a risk in environments where multiple users share Windows machines with Git for Windows installed, especially in development or build environments. The impact is limited to integrity and availability concerns, as attackers can manipulate displayed messages to mislead users, potentially leading to phishing or malware downloads via social engineering. Confidentiality is not directly affected. Organizations relying heavily on Git for Windows in shared or low-privilege user contexts may face increased risk. The low ease of exploitation and requirement for local write access reduce the overall threat level. However, given the widespread use of Git in software development across Europe, particularly in countries with strong IT sectors, the vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against developers or internal users. Disruption or misinformation in development workflows could have downstream effects on software quality and security.

Summary

CVE-2023-25815 is a path traversal vulnerability affecting Git for Windows prior to version 2.40.1. The root cause is a change in the MINGW-packages that altered the behavior of the gettext() function used for localization. Instead of using a runtime prefix for localized message files, gettext() now uses a hardcoded path (C:\mingw64\share\locale). Since typical Windows installations allow any authenticated user to create folders in the root C:\ directory, an attacker with low privileges can create a fake C:\mingw64 directory and place malicious localized message files there. When Git executes, it loads these messages, potentially displaying attacker-controlled content. This can be exploited to perform social engineering attacks, such as displaying misleading messages that prompt users to visit malicious websites. The vulnerability requires local write access and user interaction, making exploitation relatively difficult. It does not directly compromise confidentiality but can impact integrity by misleading users and availability by causing unexpected behavior. The issue is patched in Git version 2.40.1. Workarounds include restricting folder creation permissions on C:\, creating an empty C:\mingw64 directory to prevent attacker placement, and avoiding shared Windows accounts. No known exploits are reported in the wild.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
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…
Implementation · Input Validation
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).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-134Use of Externally-Controlled Format String (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
Requirements
Choose a language that is not subject to this flaw.
Implementation
Ensure that all format string functions are passed a static string which cannot be controlled by the user, and that the proper number of arguments are always sent to that function as well. If at all possible, use functions that do not support the %n operator in format strings.
Build and Compilation
Run compilers and linkers with high warning levels, since they may detect incorrect usage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Format String Injection (opens in a new tab)
String Format Overflow in syslog() (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 16:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22, CWE-134

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats