VulnerabilityPublished 7 May 2026Updated 9 May 2026

CVE-2026-44244: GitPython · Code Injection

Affects GitPythonSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High : upgrade to 3.1.49 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.49

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: 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 30 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 3.1.49.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
gitpython-developersGitPython	Affected <3.1.49	Fixed in 3.1.49
PyPIgitpython`pkg:pypi/gitpython`Other threats	Affected <3.1.49	Fixed in 3.1.49

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 3.1.49 or later where this vulnerability is patched. No other vendor advisory or patch link is provided, but the fix is confirmed in version 3.1.49. Until upgrading, avoid using untrusted input in GitPython configuration values that could contain newlines.

Description

`GitConfigParser.set_value()` passes values to Python's `configparser` without validating for newlines. GitPython's own `_write()` converts embedded newlines into indented continuation lines (e.g. `\n` becomes `\n\t`), but Git still accepts an indented `[core]` stanza as a section header — so the injected `core.hooksPath` becomes effective configuration. Any Git operation that invokes hooks (commit, merge, checkout) will then execute scripts from the attacker-controlled path. The vulnerability is not merely malformed config output: GitPython's own writer converts embedded newlines into indented continuation lines, but Git still accepts an indented `[core]` stanza as a section header, so the injected `core.hooksPath` becomes effective configuration. This was found while auditing MLRun's `project.push()` method, which passes `author_name` and `author_email` directly to `config_writer().set_value()` with no sanitization. Both parameters cross a trust boundary — they are caller-supplied API inputs that end up in `.git/config`. PoC (standalone, no MLRun required): ```python import git, subprocess, os repo = git.Repo("/tmp/testrepo") with repo.config_writer() as cw: cw.set_value("user", "name", "foo\n[core]\nhooksPath=/tmp/hooks") r = subprocess.run(["git", "config", "core.hooksPath"], cwd="/tmp/testrepo", capture_output=True, text=True) assert r.returncode == 0 print(r.stdout.strip()) # /tmp/hooks os.makedirs("/tmp/hooks", exist_ok=True) open("/tmp/hooks/pre-commit", "w").write("#!/bin/sh\nid > /tmp/pwned\n") os.chmod("/tmp/hooks/pre-commit", 0o755) repo.index.add(["README"]) repo.git.commit(m="test") print(open("/tmp/pwned").read()) # uid=... ``` Tested on GitPython 3.1.46, git 2.39+. Impact: This is persistent repo config poisoning. Any user who can supply `author_name` or `author_email` to an application calling `config_writer().set_value()` can redirect Git hook execution to an arbitrary path. In a multi-user or hosted environment (e.g. a shared MLRun server where multiple users push to the same repositories), one user can poison the `.git/config` of a shared repo and have their hooks run in the context of every subsequent Git operation by any user. On single-user deployments, the impact depends on whether the application later invokes Git hooks automatically. Remediation: `set_value()` should raise on CR, LF, or NUL in values rather than silently pass them through: ```python import re if isinstance(value, (str, bytes)) and re.search(r"[\r\n\x00]", str(value)): raise ValueError("Git config values must not contain CR, LF, or NUL") ``` Rejecting is safer than stripping — a stripped newline might indicate the caller is passing unsanitized input at a higher level, and silent normalization masks that. Affected wherever `config_writer().set_value(section, key, user_input)` is called with external input.** GitPython is a dependency of DVC, MLflow, Kedro, and others — worth auditing their `set_value()` call sites for externally influenced inputs.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker with local privileges to execute arbitrary code during Git operations that invoke hooks, such as commit, merge, or checkout. This can lead to full compromise of the affected system with the privileges of the user running GitPython. The CVSS score of 7.8 reflects high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Summary

GitPython is a Python library for interacting with Git repositories. Versions before 3.1.49 contain a vulnerability where GitConfigParser.set_value() passes unvalidated values containing newlines to Python's configparser. Although GitPython attempts to convert embedded newlines into indented continuation lines, Git itself accepts indented [core] stanzas as valid section headers. This allows an attacker to inject a malicious core.hooksPath configuration, causing Git operations that trigger hooks to execute scripts from an attacker-controlled location. This is a code injection vulnerability classified under CWE-94. The issue is fixed in version 3.1.49.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
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
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code 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-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats