VulnerabilityPublished 3 Apr 2025Updated 9 Nov 2026

CVE-2025-31130: Gix features · SHA-1 collision attacks are not detected

Affects gix-featuresSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-31130· Medium 6.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 0.41.0 when convenient.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 11:23 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.41.0

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

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

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Apr 2025
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 8 Nov 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 gix-features to 0.41.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
crates.iogix-features`pkg:cargo/gix-features`Other threats	Affected >=0.0.0-0 <0.41.0	Fixed in 0.41.0

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available in gitoxide version 0.41.0 that addresses this vulnerability. Users and developers should upgrade to version 0.41.0 or later to benefit from collision detection or mitigation. Until upgraded, users should be aware of the risk posed by SHA-1 collision attacks when using gitoxide. No other vendor advisory or mitigation instructions are provided.

Description

gitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without collision detection, making it vulnerable to SHA-1 collision attacks. Unlike Git, which mitigates this risk by detecting known SHA-1 collisions since version 2.13.0, gitoxide does not implement such protections. This allows an attacker to create two distinct Git objects with the same SHA-1 hash, potentially undermining repository integrity. The vulnerability affects all gitoxide versions before 0.41.0 and has a medium severity rating with a CVSS score of 6.8. A fix is available in version 0.41.0.

Impact

An attacker capable of generating SHA-1 collisions can create two distinct Git objects with the same SHA-1 hash, potentially allowing malicious repository contents to be disguised or causing logical errors in programs using gitoxide. This undermines the integrity guarantees of the Git object model when used with gitoxide. The cost of mounting such attacks is decreasing, making this vulnerability increasingly practical for well-resourced attackers. The vulnerability affects all users of gitoxide and related crates that handle Git objects.

Summary

gitoxide relies on the `sha1_smol` or `sha1` crates that implement standard SHA-1 hashing without any collision detection or mitigation. This contrasts with Git, which since version 2.13.0 uses the sha1collisiondetection algorithm to detect and error on known SHA-1 collisions. The absence of collision detection in gitoxide means that two distinct Git objects can share the same SHA-1 hash, breaking the Git object model and integrity checks. The vulnerability is demonstrated using the SHAttered PDFs, which produce identical SHA-1 hashes but are distinct files. Although these PDFs are not valid Git objects, the underlying collision vulnerability remains. The vulnerability is relevant as SHA-1 collision attacks are becoming more affordable and feasible for well-resourced attackers. The vulnerability affects all gitoxide versions prior to 0.41.0, which includes the `gix-*` library crates that read or write Git objects.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…