Summary
GitPython unsafe clone option gate bypass through joined short options
GitPython version 3.1.50 blocks unsafe git clone options such as --upload-pack, -u, --config, and -c unless callers explicitly pass allow_unsafe_options=True. However, the default unsafe-option gate does not recognize joined short-option forms such as -u/path/to/helper.
Git itself accepts -u<upload-pack> as the short form of --upload-pack=<upload-pack>. As a result, Repo.clone_from(..., multi_options=["-u<helper>"], allow_unsafe_options=False) can execute the helper command even though the equivalent long option is blocked.
Affected package:
- Ecosystem: PyPI
- Package:
GitPython - Confirmed affected version:
3.1.50 - Repository:
gitpython-developers/GitPython - Current PyPI version during triage:
3.1.50
Relevant behavior:
Repo.unsafe_git_clone_optionscorrectly lists--upload-pack,-u,--config, and-cas unsafe clone options.Repo._clone()splitsmulti_optionswithshlex.split(" ".join(multi_options))and then callsGit.check_unsafe_options(...)._canonicalize_option_name("-u/path/to/helper")returns a string beginning withu..., not the canonical short optionu, so it does not match the blocked-uentry.- Git accepts the same joined short option as
--upload-pack=<helper>and executes the helper during clone.
Preconditions:
An application must pass attacker-influenced clone options into Repo.clone_from(..., multi_options=...) while relying on GitPython's default unsafe-option gate to block command-executing options.
The local PoC uses only a local bare Git repository and a local helper script. It does not contact any third-party service.
Local reproduction:
The PoC creates a disposable bare Git repository, a helper script, and a sentinel file path. It first confirms that the long --upload-pack=<helper> form is blocked by GitPython. It then calls Repo.clone_from(..., multi_options=["-u<helper>"], allow_unsafe_options=False).
Observed sanitized output:
gitpython_version=3.1.50
git_version=git version 2.53.0.windows.1
tmp_dir=<tmp>
long_upload_pack_gate=BLOCKED:UnsafeOptionError
joined_short_upload_pack_gate=ALLOWED
clone_result=EXPECTED_EXCEPTION:GitCommandError
sentinel_exists=True
sentinel_text=GITPYTHON_UNSAFE_OPTION_BYPASS
The clone fails because the helper exits nonzero, but the sentinel file proves that Git executed the helper despite allow_unsafe_options=False.
Impact:
An attacker who controls multi_options can bypass GitPython's default allow_unsafe_options=False protection and execute a local command via Git's --upload-pack / -u clone option. This is a residual bypass of an explicit GitPython security boundary, not merely a case where a caller opted into unsafe behavior.
Duplicate / related advisory checks:
- OSV query for
PyPI/GitPythonversion3.1.50returned no vulnerabilities. - The repository's public advisories include related unsafe Git option issues, including
GHSA-x2qx-6953-8485/CVE-2026-42284andGHSA-rpm5-65cw-6hj4/CVE-2026-42215. Their public affected ranges are marked as fixed before 3.1.50. GHSA-x2qx-6953-8485describes validatingmulti_optionsbeforeshlex.split(...). GitPython 3.1.50 now validates after splitting, but the joined short option-u<value>still bypasses because the validator canonicalizes it tou<value>rather thanu.GHSA-rpm5-65cw-6hj4describes unsafe underscored kwargs such asupload_pack=.... The current PoC usesmulti_options=["-u<helper>"]against 3.1.50 and does not depend on underscored kwargs.- GitHub issue search for
upload-pack unsafe optionsfound historical related items, including CVE-2022-24439 and the earlier unsafe-options gate work, but no public issue describing this current joined-short-option residual bypass in 3.1.50. - GitHub issue search for
multi_options unsafefound PR #2130, which fixed splitting ofmulti_optionsbefore checking. The current issue remains after that split because-u<value>is treated as option nameu<value>, not blocked short optionu. - GitHub issue searches for
u<upload-pack> unsafeand-cfooreturned no results.
Suggested remediation:
When checking unsafe Git options, parse joined short options that take values. For clone, -uVALUE and -cKEY=VALUE should be canonicalized to u and c respectively before comparing against the unsafe option set.
A safer approach is to maintain command-specific metadata for unsafe short options and recognize the bare option, split form, joined form, and long --option=<value> / --option <value> forms.
Impact
Untrusted input reaches a shell command, allowing arbitrary commands to run on the host. Typical impact: code execution in the application's environment.
Affected versions
Security releases
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
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ? GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ is a high-severity OS command injection vulnerability in GitPython (pip), affecting versions = 3.1.50. It is fixed in 3.1.51. Untrusted input reaches a shell command, allowing arbitrary commands to run on the host.
- Which versions of GitPython are affected by GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ? GitPython (pip) versions = 3.1.50 is affected.
- Is there a fix for GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ? Yes. GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ is fixed in 3.1.51. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ 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
- What actually determines whether GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ 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.
- How do I fix GHSA-V396-V7Q4-X2QJ? Upgrade
GitPythonto 3.1.51 or later.