CVE-2026-78675VulnerabilityPublished 4 Sep 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

shallow-backup · GitPython: Arbitrary local file content disclosure via [include] directive in untrusted .gitmodules

Affects shallow-backupSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-78675· High 8.6

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High : upgrade to 6.6_7 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.6_7

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
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 25 Aug 2026
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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 shallow-backup to 6.6_7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewshallow-backup`pkg:brew/shallow-backup`Other threats	Affected >=5.0.1 <6.6_7	Fixed in 6.6_7

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

Description

# [HIGH] Arbitrary local file content disclosure via `[include]` directive in untrusted `.gitmodules` (`SubmoduleConfigParser` never disables `merge_includes`) - **CWE:** CWE-200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information) / CWE-73 (External Control of File Name or Path) - **Affected component:** `git/objects/submodule/base.py`, `Submodule._config_parser()` (~line 273) constructing `SubmoduleConfigParser(fp_module, read_only=read_only)`; `git/config.py`, `GitConfigParser.__init__` (`merge_includes` default), `GitConfigParser.read()`/`_included_paths()` (include-path resolution, ~lines 630-685), `GitConfigParser._read()` (~line 493-498, `MissingSectionHeaderError`) - **Affected version:** GitPython at HEAD (`9729ed3b948f2bde09f1f188c5311e172212b67e`, 2026-08-05, VERSION `3.1.58`) ## Reachability `GitConfigParser.__init__` defaults `merge_includes=True`: any config file it parses has its `[include]` (and, when a `repo=` is supplied, `[includeIf ...]`) directives followed and merged in. The maintainers already recognized this as dangerous for one specific case and fixed it in commit `41ecc6a4` ("Disable merge_includes in config writers"), which passes `merge_includes=False` when `Repo.config_writer()` builds its parser (`git/repo/base.py`). That fix never touched `Submodule._config_parser()`. This method builds the parser used for **every** read of a repo's submodule configuration — `repo.submodules`, `Submodule.iter_items()`, `Submodule.config()` — via `SubmoduleConfigParser(fp_module, read_only=read_only)`, passing neither `merge_includes=False` nor `repo=`. The `True` class default is therefore inherited unchanged, and `fp_module` here is `.gitmodules` — **the single most attacker-controlled config file in the entire codebase**, since it ships verbatim as tracked content inside any cloned repository. `GitConfigParser.read()`'s include-path resolution (~line 662-680) performs no containment check: `osp.isabs(include_path)` short-circuits the path join entirely for an absolute path, and a relative path is joined with `osp.join(osp.dirname(file_path), include_path)` / `osp.normpath()`'d with no check that the result stays under the repository. `~` is expanded via `osp.expanduser`. The only gate before opening is `os.access(include_path, os.R_OK)` — a readability check, not a path restriction. Once opened, `GitConfigParser._read()` parses the target file as git-config INI. If the first non-blank/non-comment line is not a `[section]` header — true of virtually any non-gitconfig file (source code, `/etc/passwd`, `.env` files, credential files, logs, JSON/YAML) — it raises `configparser.MissingSectionHeaderError(fpname, lineno, line)`. Python's stdlib formats this exception's `str()` as `"File contains no section headers.\nfile: %r, line: %d\n%r" % (fpname, lineno, line)` — it embeds the **verbatim content** of that file's first line in the exception message. `Submodule.iter_items()` catches only `(IOError, BadName)`, not `configparser.Error`, so this exception propagates straight out of the ordinary, read-only `repo.submodules` call. ## Root cause Parity gap between two config-parser construction sites for the exact same footgun: `Repo.config_writer()` was hardened against `merge_includes` in 2023 (`41ecc6a4`); `Submodule._config_parser()` — which parses `.gitmodules`, content that is *always* attacker-controlled the moment a repository is cloned from an untrusted source — was never given the same treatment. (The submodule *write*-mode config parser at `git/objects/submodule/base.py` for `.git/modules/<name>/config` — a different, locally-generated file — has correctly passed `merge_includes=False` since 2022, underscoring that the omission for `.gitmodules` reads looks like an oversight rather than a considered exception.) ## Exploit path 1. Attacker crafts a repository whose `.gitmodules` contains a legitimate-looking `[submodule ...]` section plus: ``` [include] path = /etc/passwd ``` (an absolute path bypasses any traversal reasoning entirely; a relative `../../../../etc/passwd`-style path works too). 2. Victim performs the extremely common, entirely read-only operation of enumerating a cloned repo's submodules: `list(repo.submodules)` (or any `for sm in repo.submodules`) — no `update()`, `init()`, or checkout of any kind required. 3. `SubmoduleConfigParser` (inheriting `merge_includes=True`) follows the `[include]` directive, opens `/etc/passwd`, and `GitConfigParser._read()` raises `MissingSectionHeaderError` whose message embeds `/etc/passwd`'s first line verbatim. 4. This exception surfaces wherever the host application observes exceptions from GitPython — CI logs, error pages, exception trackers, or any dependency-scanner/code-review-bot/hosting-platform tool built on `repo.submodules` — disclosing the targeted file's first line to the attacker (directly, or indirectly via any channel that echoes the error). ## Impact Non-blind local file content disclosure (first line) of any file readab

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…