CVE-2026-114098VulnerabilityPublished 4 Oct 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

stash pop · Dulwich: Symlink directory traversal

Affects prowlerSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114098· High 7.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High : upgrade to 5.45.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 05:15 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.3High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 4.0	7.3
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 3.1	7.8

Patch: Available – fixed in 5.45.0

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
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: Local: The vulnerable system 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 through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 prowler to 5.45.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewprowler`pkg:brew/prowler`Other threats	Affected >=5.9.0 <5.45.0	Fixed in 5.45.0

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

Description

## Summary Dulwich's `stash.py:pop()` function is vulnerable to symlink directory traversal, allowing an attacker to write arbitrary files outside the repository worktree when a victim pops a stash in a malicious repository. ## Root Cause The `pop()` function at `dulwich/stash.py:236` uses `os.path.exists(parent_dir)` to check if a parent directory exists before writing stashed files. `os.path.exists()` follows symlinks, so when an intermediate directory in the path is a symlink pointing outside the worktree (e.g., `link → ../../.git/hooks`), the check passes and subsequent file writes resolve through the symlink. The `validate_path()` function (line 228) only validates path component names against `INVALID_DOTNAMES` — it performs zero filesystem symlink detection. On dulwich 1.2.7 (latest release), `build_file_from_blob()` has no symlink protection whatsoever. ## Impact An attacker can craft a malicious repository that, when a victim clones it and performs a stash pop operation, writes attacker-controlled content to arbitrary filesystem locations. Writing to `.git/hooks/post-checkout` achieves Remote Code Execution on the victim's machine on the next git checkout operation. ## Attack Scenario 1. Attacker creates a repository with branch `main` containing `link` (symlink → `../../.git/hooks`) and branch `feature` containing `link/post-checkout` (executable payload) 2. Victim clones the repository (landing on `main` — symlink `link` exists in worktree) 3. Victim checks out `feature`, makes changes, runs `stash.push()` 4. Victim checks out `main` (restoring the `link` symlink) 5. Victim runs `stash.pop(0)` — stash contains `link/post-checkout` 6. `os.path.exists("link")` returns True (symlink to existing directory), `os.makedirs` skipped 7. `build_file_from_blob(blob, mode, "link/post-checkout")` → `open("link/post-checkout", "wb")` follows the intermediate symlink → payload written to `.git/hooks/post-checkout` 8. Next checkout operation triggers the hook → RCE ## Suggested Fix Before writing any file, verify that no component of the target path resolves through a symlink outside the worktree. Use `os.path.realpath(parent_dir)` and confirm it stays within the repository root. Alternatively, use `os.open()` with `O_NOFOLLOW` on each path component. Reported by **zx (Jace)**

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…