GHSA-v87r-6q3f-2j67 — gitpython
HIGHGHSA-v87r-6q3f-2j67 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.8) Code Injection vulnerability in gitpython. A fix is available for gitpython — see the affected versions and patch details below.
GitPython: Newline injection in config_writer().set_value() enables RCE via core.hooksPath
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-v87r-6q3f-2j67.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-v87r-6q3f-2j67 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 379,842 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.
Real-World Exposure
gitpythonReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
GitConfigParser.set_value() passes values to Python's configparser without validating for newlines. GitPython's own _write() converts embedded newlines into indented continuation lines (e.g. \n becomes \n\t), but Git still accepts an indented [core] stanza as a section header — so the injected core.hooksPath becomes effective configuration. Any Git operation that invokes hooks (commit, merge, checkout) will then execute scripts from the attacker-controlled path.
The vulnerability is not merely malformed config output: GitPython's own writer converts embedded newlines into indented continuation lines, but Git still accepts an indented [core] stanza as a section header, so the injected core.hooksPath becomes effective configuration.
This was found while auditing MLRun's project.push() method, which passes author_name and author_email directly to config_writer().set_value() with no sanitization. Both parameters cross a trust boundary — they are caller-supplied API inputs that end up in .git/config.
PoC (standalone, no MLRun required):
import git, subprocess, os
repo = git.Repo("/tmp/testrepo")
with repo.config_writer() as cw:
cw.set_value("user", "name", "foo\n[core]\nhooksPath=/tmp/hooks")
r = subprocess.run(["git", "config", "core.hooksPath"], cwd="/tmp/testrepo", capture_output=True, text=True)
assert r.returncode == 0
print(r.stdout.strip()) # /tmp/hooks
os.makedirs("/tmp/hooks", exist_ok=True)
open("/tmp/hooks/pre-commit", "w").write("#!/bin/sh\nid > /tmp/pwned\n")
os.chmod("/tmp/hooks/pre-commit", 0o755)
repo.index.add(["README"])
repo.git.commit(m="test")
print(open("/tmp/pwned").read()) # uid=...
Tested on GitPython 3.1.46, git 2.39+.
Impact: This is persistent repo config poisoning. Any user who can supply author_name or author_email to an application calling config_writer().set_value() can redirect Git hook execution to an arbitrary path. In a multi-user or hosted environment (e.g. a shared MLRun server where multiple users push to the same repositories), one user can poison the .git/config of a shared repo and have their hooks run in the context of every subsequent Git operation by any user. On single-user deployments, the impact depends on whether the application later invokes Git hooks automatically.
Remediation: set_value() should raise on CR, LF, or NUL in values rather than silently pass them through:
import re
if isinstance(value, (str, bytes)) and re.search(r"[\r\n\x00]", str(value)):
raise ValueError("Git config values must not contain CR, LF, or NUL")
Rejecting is safer than stripping — a stripped newline might indicate the caller is passing unsanitized input at a higher level, and silent normalization masks that.
Affected wherever config_writer().set_value(section, key, user_input) is called with external input.** GitPython is a dependency of DVC, MLflow, Kedro, and others — worth auditing their set_value() call sites for externally influenced inputs.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | gitpython | all versions | 3.1.49pip install --upgrade 'gitpython==3.1.49' |
Affected Products
gitpythongitpython_projectDetection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for gitpython, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update gitpython to 3.1.49 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-v87r-6q3f-2j67 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Stop passing untrusted input into the interpreter or shell: call the affected binary with an argument array rather than a composed command string, reject anything outside a strict allowlist of expected values, and run the component under an account that cannot reach beyond the work it legitimately does.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
This is an Important flaw in GitPython that allows for arbitrary code execution. By injecting newlines into Git configuration values, an attacker can manipulate the `core.hooksPath` to execute malicious scripts during standard Git operations. This poses a significant risk in environments where applications process…
To mitigate this issue, applications that use GitPython and process untrusted input for Git configuration values must implement robust input validation and sanitization. This prevents the injection of newlines that could manipulate `core.hooksPath` and lead to arbitrary code execution. Additionally, ensure that applications interacting with Git repositories operate with the principle of least privilege to limit the potential impact of any successful exploitation.Source: Red Hat security advisory for GHSA-v87r-6q3f-2j67 (CC BY 4.0)
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8 | python3.12-gitpython-0:3.1.50-1.el8ap | RHSA-2026:42078 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9 | python3.12-gitpython-0:3.1.50-1.el9ap | RHSA-2026:42079 |
| Red Hat Satellite 6.19 for RHEL 9 | python3.12-gitpython-0:3.1.59-1.el9pc | RHSA-2026:63385 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 | ansible-automation-platform-25/controller-rhel8:1789607021 | RHSA-2026:71210 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/hub-rhel9:1783979593 | RHSA-2026:42132 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9:1789673739 | RHSA-2026:71179 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 | ansible-automation-platform-27/controller-rhel9:1787220257 | RHSA-2026:59153 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 | ansible-automation-platform-27/hub-rhel9:1788918708 | RHSA-2026:67279 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-v87r-6q3f-2j67 in your dependencies?
Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.