CVE-2026-110858VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

Snowflake cli: GitPython Remote.pull() refspec bypasses the --upload-pack unsafe-option guard, enabling arbitrary

Affects snowflake-cliSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-110858· Critical 9.2

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.2 Critical : upgrade to 3.30.0 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 07:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.2Critical

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.30.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: 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 14 Oct 2026
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 29 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.
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 snowflake-cli to 3.30.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewsnowflake-cli`pkg:brew/snowflake-cli`Other threats	Affected >=3.4.1 <3.30.0	Fixed in 3.30.0

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

Description

## Summary `Remote.pull()` in GitPython forwards its positional `refspec` argument directly to the `git pull` child process while its unsafe-option guard inspects only keyword arguments. An application that passes attacker-influenced data as the `refspec` (for example a user-supplied branch or refspec parameter in a web or CI service) can supply an option-shaped value such as `--upload-pack=<command>`. The value bypasses the `unsafe_git_pull_options` check, is placed after the `--` separator on the `git pull` command line, and is executed as the upload-pack program for local-path or SSH transports. This yields arbitrary command execution with the privileges of the calling process using the documented default arguments (`allow_unsafe_options=False`). ## Root Cause `Remote.pull()` is documented to reject dangerous options unless `allow_unsafe_options=True`, and `--upload-pack` is explicitly listed as such an option. The guard, however, only screens keyword arguments and never the positional `refspec`. The check builds its candidate list with `Git._option_candidates([], kwargs)`, passing an empty list in place of the positionals, so the `refspec` value is never compared against `unsafe_git_pull_options = ["--upload-pack"]`. The normalized `refspec` is then forwarded verbatim to the `git pull` invocation. The leading `--` separator that neutralizes an option-shaped refspec for `git fetch` and `git push` does not protect `git pull`, because `git pull` re-forwards its trailing positionals to an internal `git fetch` without re-inserting a `--` separator, so the positional becomes an option to that internal fetch. ```text Affected function: git.remote.Remote.pull Source: git/remote.py (guard at the check_unsafe_options call using _option_candidates([], kwargs); sink at the self.repo.git.pull("--", self, refspec, ...) invocation) ``` ## Impact An attacker who controls the `refspec` value passed to `Remote.pull()` achieves arbitrary operating-system command execution as the process invoking GitPython, with no additional privileges and no user interaction, on the default code path. Exploitation requires that the pulled remote uses a transport that runs upload-pack on the local side, namely a local filesystem path or SSH; over HTTPS the `--upload-pack` value is inert because the server ignores a client-supplied upload-pack program. This transport requirement narrows the population of vulnerable deployments but does not add work for the attacker once a vulnerable target is reached. Working checkouts commonly use local-path or SSH origins, so the exposed population is substantial. ## Proof of Concept ```text Environment: GitPython from the affected source tree; system git 2.43.0. The pulled origin uses a local filesystem transport (protocol.file.allow=always for git >= 2.38). ``` Reproduction steps: 1. Create an origin repository reachable over a local-path transport. 2. In a consumer repository, register that origin and call `Remote.pull()` with an attacker-controlled refspec. 3. Observe that the injected command executes. ```python import git repo = git.Repo("consumer") # has an origin using a local-path or ssh transport origin = repo.remote("origin") # Attacker-controlled refspec value; default arguments (allow_unsafe_options=False): origin.pull(refspec="--upload-pack=touch /tmp/pwned; git-upload-pack") ``` ```text cmdline: git pull -v -- origin --upload-pack=touch /tmp/pwned; git-upload-pack [attack] marker created (RCE) : True [isolate] upload_pack passed as KWARG blocked : True (only the positional refspec escapes) [sibling] same value via git fetch : safe (pull-specific behavior) [control] benign refspec : safe ``` ## Attack Chain 1. **Exposure:** An application calls `Remote.pull(refspec=<value>)` on the default path, where `<value>` is derived from attacker-influenced input such as a branch or refspec request parameter. 2. **Control:** The attacker supplies the string `--upload-pack=<command>; git-upload-pack`. The value passes through `Git._unpack_args`, which only flattens and stringifies it, preserving the option shape. 3. **Path:** The protocol loop calls `Git.check_unsafe_protocols` on the value, which only matches remote-helper transport URLs (a `<transport>::` form) and does not flag an `--upload-pack=` token. 4. **Guard:** The unsafe-option guard calls `check_unsafe_options(options=Git._option_candidates([], kwargs), ...)`. Because positionals are passed as an empty list, the positional `refspec` is never inspected against `unsafe_git_pull_options`. 5. **Primitive:** The value is forwarded to `git pull -v -- <remote> --upload-pack=<command>; git-upload-pack`; `git pull` re-forwards the positional to an internal `git fetch` without a `--` separator, so it is honored as the upload-pack program. 6. **Result:** For a local-path or SSH transport, git executes `<command>` as the upload-pack program, giving arbitrary command execution as the calling p

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…