VulnerabilityPublished 20 Sep 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-87817: GitPython · Repository content can impersonate the git directory, leading to arbitrary code execution

Affects cf2tfSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-87817· High 8.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 0.9.2_9 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: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.2_9

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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: 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: 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: 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 9 Sep 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_9.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewcf2tf`pkg:brew/cf2tf`Other threats	Affected >=0.6.1 <0.9.2_9	Fixed in 0.9.2_9

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

Description

### Summary `Repo.__init__` decides which directory is the git directory by testing candidate paths in an order that considers the real `.git` **last**. Two earlier tests can be satisfied by ordinary tracked files. Git reserves only the literal name `.git`, so `HEAD`, `objects/`, `refs/`, `config`, `gitdir`, `commondir` and `hooks/` at a repository root are all legal tracked content. Consequently, after a victim opens or clones an attacker's repository, GitPython resolves `git_dir` to the **working-tree root** while real git correctly resolves `<root>/.git`. Everything GitPython then treats as "inside the git directory" is attacker-authored content — including `hooks/`, which it executes. ### CVE-2026-87817 ### Affected code (3.1.59) The discovery loop in `git/repo/base.py` tests, in order: 1. `git/repo/base.py:299` — `isfile(curpath/gitdir)` **and** `isfile(curpath/commondir)` **and** `isfile(curpath/HEAD)` 2. `git/repo/base.py:320` — `is_git_dir(curpath)` 3. `git/repo/base.py:341` — `dotgit = osp.join(curpath, ".git")` ← the real git dir, considered last `is_git_dir` (`git/repo/fun.py:60`) requires only that `objects/` and `refs/` are directories and that `HEAD` is a file; **`HEAD`'s contents are never parsed.** The hook path is resolved from `index.repo.git_dir` (`git/index/fun.py:73`), i.e. the mis-resolved directory. ### Proof of concept Requires only `pip install GitPython==3.1.59`. Full script attached as `poc1_rce.py`; it runs entirely in a temp directory and the payload only writes a marker file. Attacker repository — four ordinary tracked files at the root: | path | mode | content | |---|---|---| | `gitdir` | 100644 | `.git\n` | | `commondir` | 100644 | `.git\n` | | `HEAD` | 100644 | `ref: refs/heads/master\n` | | `hooks/pre-commit` | **100755** | `#!/bin/sh` + payload | Victim — two ordinary calls: ```python repo = git.Repo.clone_from(url, dst) # or git.Repo(dst) repo.index.commit("automated commit") # code execution happens here ``` Observed on the PyPI release 3.1.59 (Linux and Windows): ``` real git says the git dir is : /tmp/.../victim/.git GitPython says it is : /tmp/.../victim <- shadowed attacker's hook executed : True git fsck : (clean) ``` The `pre-commit` hook runs at `git/index/base.py:1201`, before `write_tree()`, so it fires even though the commit later fails. ### Impact A service that opens or clones an untrusted repository with GitPython — a CI runner building a fork pull request, a code-scanning/SBOM service, a mirror, a dependency bot, an AI code-review/agent tool — can be made to: 1. **Execute arbitrary commands** via the tracked `<root>/hooks/pre-commit` when the victim calls `index.commit()`. 2. **Read files outside the repository**: the tracked `<root>/config` becomes the repository config and is parsed with `merge_includes=True` (`git/repo/base.py:765`), so `[include] path = ~/.aws/credentials` discloses the file. (`Repo._config_reader` still defaults `merge_includes=True`, so the hardening added in 3.1.59 for `.gitmodules`/GHSA-7833 does not cover this path.) 3. **Write a config file to an attacker-chosen directory** via an absolute tracked `commondir`. Delivery is silent: `git clone` exits 0, `git fsck` (including `--strict`, and with `transfer.fsckObjects`/`fetch.fsckObjects=true`) reports nothing, and the clone passes every read-only probe (`head.commit`, `branches`, `is_dirty()`, `untracked_files`, `iter_commits`) because a tracked `commondir` of `.git` pins `common_dir` to the real `.git`. ### Threat model / preconditions - Attacker controls the content of a repository the victim opens or clones with GitPython (public repo, fork PR, mirrored dependency). - For code execution, the victim performs a commit via GitPython's native `index.commit()`. For the file-read impact, opening the repo and reading config is enough. - `GIT_WORK_TREE` is **not** a mitigation — `git_dir` is assigned and the discovery loop breaks before the environment is consulted. - Real git is unaffected; only GitPython mis-resolves the directory. ### Remediation 1. Test `curpath/.git` **before** the `gitdir`/`commondir`/`HEAD` triple and before `is_git_dir(curpath)`. 2. Resolve `hook_path` / `_commit_hook_path` / `_get_validated_reflog_path` through `repo.common_dir`. 3. Containment-check `commondir`/`gitdir` contents before joining (reuse `SymbolicReference._get_validated_path`). 4. Validate `HEAD` in `is_git_dir` (require `ref: refs/...` or a 40-hex sha). 5. Pass `merge_includes=False` in `Repo._config_reader` (`git/repo/base.py:765`). ### Note for the maintainers Commit `406b98e1` (2026-05-31, "respect core.hooksPath for commit hooks") resolved the hook path via `git rev-parse --git-path`, which is immune because git rediscovers the true `.git`. Commit `9bc287a2` (2026-07-20) reverted it to avoid an unconditional `rev-parse` dependency — reintroducing the exec step. Measured at each commit with the healthy-lo

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…