GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc: Infoleak

Published Aug 7, 2026
·
Updated

Summary

IndexFile.remove() and Head.checkout() forward kwargs into git rm and git checkout with no guard. Passing --pathspec-from-file=<file> together with --pathspec-file-nul makes Git treat the whole file as a single NUL-delimited pathspec, and the unmatched-pathspec error quotes it verbatim. GitPython surfaces that through GitCommandError.stderr, so the entire contents of a caller-chosen file are returned to the caller in band.

This is the same primitive as Instance 2 of GHSA-3f7w-8rr8-f37f - TagReference.create() with -F, arbitrary file read returned in band - at two sites that advisory assessed and cleared.

Prior art, and why I am filing rather than commenting

GHSA-3f7w-8rr8-f37f's sweep table lists these four sites with the assessment "--pathspec-from-file only reads a pathspec; no write or disclosure primitive found":

| Call site | git command | that advisory's assessment | |---|---|---| | IndexFile.remove() | rm | --pathspec-from-file only reads a pathspec; no write or disclosure primitive found | | IndexFile.move() | mv | same | | HEAD.reset() | reset | same | | HEAD.checkout() | checkout | same |

That assessment is very nearly right, and I think that is why it held: with --pathspec-from-file alone, Git splits on newlines and the error quotes only the first line, which reads as an uninteresting partial. Adding --pathspec-file-nul - a sibling flag of the same option, and the documented way to handle paths containing newlines - makes the whole file one pathspec.

Root cause

git/index/base.py:991-1043:

python def remove(self, items, workingtree=False, kwargs): ... removedpaths = self.repo.git.rm(args, paths, kwargs).splitlines() # line 1043

git/refs/head.py:237-268:

python def checkout(self, force: bool = False, kwargs: Any): ... self.repo.git.checkout(self, kwargs) # line 268

Neither has an allowunsafeoptions parameter or a checkunsafeoptions() call.

Proof of concept

python from git import Repo from git.exc import GitCommandError

repo = Repo("/path/to/repo") kw = dict(pathspecfromfile="/etc/passwd", pathspecfilenul=True)

try: repo.index.remove([], kw) # or: repo.heads[0].checkout(kw) except GitCommandError as e: print(e.stderr) # <- entire file contents

Observed on published 3.1.57, against a canary file holding three marked lines:

[PASS] IndexFile.remove() -> git rm returns ALL 3 canary lines in-band stderr: 'fatal: pathspec 'LINE1-CANARY-4242 LINE2-SECRET-7777 LINE3-TAIL-9999 ' did not match any files' [PASS] Head.checkout() -> git checkout returns ALL 3 canary lines in-band stderr: 'error: pathspec 'LINE1-CANARY-4242 LINE2-SECRET-7777 LINE3-TAIL-9999 ' did not match any file(s) known to git' [PASS] PRECISION: git status leaks 0/3 -- not every unguarded site discloses [PASS] PRECISION: the GUARDED checkout-index leaks 0/3

The two precision controls are there so the result is about these sinks and not about the canary being visible everywhere.

Scope correction to the table above

Of the four sites cleared with that sentence, two disclose and two do not:

| Call site | disclosed? | |---|---| | IndexFile.remove() → git rm | yes, full file | | Head.checkout() → git checkout | yes, full file | | HEAD.reset() → git reset | no - git reset does not error on unmatched pathspecs | | IndexFile.move() → git mv | no |

The two negatives are mentioned because "the dismissal was wrong" would overstate it: the dismissal was wrong for half of what it covered.

Affected Software

1 affected componentFixes available
pip/GitPython<=3.1.57
3.1.58

Remediation

Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.

  1. Upgrade

    Upgrade pip/GitPython to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 3.1.58

Event History

Aug 7, 2026
Advisory Published
via GitHub·03:43 PM
Data Sourced
via GitHub·03:43 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeaknessAffected Software
Free Weekly Intel

Don't miss critical vulnerabilities

Join thousands of security professionals who receive our weekly digest of trending CVEs, zero-days, and exploited vulnerabilities.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

1

What is the severity of GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc?

The severity of GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc is medium with a score of 6.5.

2

What is the risk associated with GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc?

The risk associated with GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc is rated at 38.

3

How do I fix GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc?

To fix GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc, update to the latest version of GitPython that addresses this vulnerability.

4

What are the implications of GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc?

GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc can lead to potential information leakage through unsafe pathspec handling in Git operations.

5

Which software is affected by GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc?

GHSA-hh9p-6wh2-4mfc affects the GitPython library used with pip.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203