VulnerabilityPublished 7 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-71557: go-git · Malicious reference names may modify files outside the reference storage

Affects github.com/go-git/go-git/v5Source GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 5.19.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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 5.19.2, 6.0.0-alpha.5

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

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

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 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 github.com/go-git/go-git/v5 to 5.19.2; github.com/go-git/go-git/v6 to 6.0.0-alpha.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/go-git/go-git/v5	Affected <5.19.2	Fixed in 5.19.2
Gogithub.com/go-git/go-git/v6	Affected <6.0.0-alpha.5	Fixed in 6.0.0-alpha.5

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

Description

### Impact A path traversal issue in `go-git` could allow malicious reference names to access files outside the repository's intended reference storage. Loose references are stored under `.git/<reference-name>`. The reference name was previously used as a path without verifying that the resolved path remained within the reference storage. A name such as `refs/heads/../../config` could therefore resolve to unrelated repository metadata such as `.git/config` or `.git/HEAD`. A malicious Git server could advertise such a reference name. The name may also survive refspec mapping; for example, it could be mapped to `refs/remotes/origin/../../config` during a clone or fetch operation. This vulnerability affects filesystem-backed repositories using the `storage/filesystem` package and its `dotgit` reference storage. Users relying exclusively on the in-memory storage implementation, `storage/memory`, are not affected, because reference names are not resolved as filesystem paths. Exploitation requires an application using `go-git` with filesystem-backed storage to interact with a malicious Git server or otherwise process attacker-controlled reference names. ### Patches The issue has been addressed by validating reference names at the `dotgit` storage entry points and rejecting names whose resolved paths could escape the reference storage. Users of filesystem-backed storage should upgrade to a patched version. ### Workarounds Applications that exclusively use `storage/memory` are not affected and do not require a workaround for this vulnerability. For applications using filesystem-backed storage, avoid cloning from or fetching from untrusted Git servers until an upgrade is possible. Applications that directly construct or process reference names may also validate them before passing them to filesystem-backed `go-git` storage. Application-level validation should only be considered a temporary mitigation and does not replace upgrading to a patched version. ### References - Fixes: - https://github.com/go-git/go-git/pull/2247 - https://github.com/go-git/go-git/pull/2254 ### Credits Thanks to @Saku0512 for reporting this issue and @Sahana2524 for proposing the initial fix. 🙇

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats