GHSA-6p8h-3wgx-97gf
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
GitPython's unsafe_git_clone_options denylist omits --template. git clone --template=<dir> copies <dir>/hooks/ into the new repository and runs them (post-checkout fires during clone), so a caller who can influence clone options can achieve arbitrary command execution in the default allow_unsafe_options=False configuration.
Root Cause
base.py:145-152 defines unsafe_git_clone_options = ["--upload-pack","-u","--config","-c"] — --template is absent. The guard candidate ['--template'] passes check_unsafe_options (verified). git copies the hook directory and executes post-checkout at checkout time. git's protocol.allow/GIT_ALLOW_PROTOCOL do not gate --template; the incomplete denylist is the only defense.
Impact
Arbitrary OS command execution during clone (default config). Requires an attacker-readable directory containing an executable hook — a genuine second precondition (realistic via shared filesystems, upload dirs, /tmp, or attacker-writable network paths), reflected as AC:H.
Proof of Concept
# attacker stages <dir>/hooks/post-checkout (chmod +x)
from git import Repo
Repo.clone_from(src, dst, template='<dir>') # post-checkout hook executes -> marker created (verified)
Attack Chain
- Setup: attacker stages
<dir>/hooks/post-checkout(chmod +x). Guard: n/a (filesystem). - Entry:
Repo.clone_from(url, path, template='<dir>'). Guard:check_unsafe_options(candidates=['--template'], unsafe=unsafe_git_clone_options). Bypass proof:--templatenot on the denylist -> passes (verified candidate['--template'], no error). - Sink: git copies the hook and executes
post-checkoutat checkout. Impact: ACE, default config (verified marker created).
Bypass Evidence
Live-verified on HEAD (tag 3.1.53): guard candidate ['--template'] passed with no error; staged post-checkout hook executed during clone_from, creating the marker. Independent of the value-smuggle bypass (--template is a legitimate long option that survives any single-char-value fix). Not covered by any existing advisory.
Affected Versions
<= 3.1.53
Suggested Fix
Add --template (and audit for other hook/exec-influencing options) to unsafe_git_clone_options.
Reported by zx (Jace) — GitHub: @manus-use
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gitpython | pypi | - | - | <=3.1.53 | 3.1.54 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
The attacker 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 has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
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.
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component 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.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or 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.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; 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 impacted component.