gitoxide
An idiomatic, lean, fast & safe pure Rust implementation of Git
Activity
- Latest release
- 2w ago
- Total releases
- 66
- Cadence
- ~29 days
- Last 12 months
- 14
Reach
- Downloads
- 110.4k
- Stars
- 11.9k
Details
- License
- MIT OR Apache-2.0
- First release
- Jul 12, 2020
| Version | Released | |
|---|---|---|
0.58.0
minor
|
0.58.0
minor
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.57.0
minor
|
0.57.0
minor
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.56.0
unknown
|
0.56.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.55.0
unknown
|
0.55.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.54.0
unknown
|
0.54.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.53.0
unknown
|
0.53.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.52.1
unknown
|
0.52.1
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.52.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.52.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.51.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.51.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.50.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.50.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.49.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.49.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.48.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.48.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.47.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.47.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.46.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.46.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.45.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.45.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.44.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.44.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.43.0
unknown
yanked
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.43.0
unknown
yanked
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.42.0
unknown
2 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.42.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.41.0
unknown
4 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.41.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.40.0
unknown
4 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.40.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.39.0
unknown
4 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.39.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.38.0
unknown
4 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.38.0
unknown
Dependencies (18)
+ 10 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.37.0
unknown
4 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.37.0
unknown
Dependencies (19)
+ 11 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.36.0
unknown
4 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.36.0
unknown
Dependencies (19)
+ 11 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.35.0
unknown
6 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.35.0
unknown
Dependencies (19)
+ 11 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.34.0
unknown
yanked
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.34.0
unknown
yanked
Dependencies (19)
+ 11 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.33.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.33.0
unknown
Dependencies (21)
+ 13 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.32.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.32.0
unknown
Dependencies (20)
+ 12 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.31.1
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.31.1
unknown
Dependencies (20)
+ 12 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.31.0
unknown
yanked
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.31.0
unknown
yanked
Dependencies (20)
+ 12 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.30.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.30.0
unknown
Dependencies (19)
+ 11 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.29.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.29.0
unknown
Dependencies (19)
+ 11 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.28.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.28.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.27.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.27.0
unknown
Dependencies (17)
+ 9 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.26.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.26.0
unknown
Dependencies (14)
+ 6 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.25.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.25.0
unknown
Dependencies (14)
+ 6 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.24.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.24.0
unknown
Dependencies (14)
+ 6 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.23.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.23.0
unknown
Dependencies (14)
+ 6 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.22.1
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.22.1
unknown
Dependencies (14)
+ 6 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.22.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.22.0
unknown
Dependencies (13)
+ 5 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.21.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.21.0
unknown
Dependencies (13)
+ 5 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.20.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.20.0
unknown
Dependencies (13)
+ 5 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.19.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.19.0
unknown
Dependencies (13)
+ 5 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.18.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.18.0
unknown
Dependencies (13)
+ 5 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.17.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.17.0
unknown
Dependencies (14)
+ 6 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.16.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.16.0
unknown
Dependencies (12)
+ 4 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.15.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.15.0
unknown
Dependencies (12)
+ 4 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.14.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.14.0
unknown
Dependencies (12)
+ 4 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.13.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.13.0
unknown
Dependencies (12)
+ 4 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|
|
0.12.0
unknown
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-82251
GHSA-fr8x-3vfx-f45h
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide: unvalidated submodule name traverses out of .git/modules and redirects state() / open() to another repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip Submodule names coming from
Because the submodule name is joined directly as a filesystem path component, a name such as The updated PoC demonstrates the real sink, not just string construction:
Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
There is no normalization-and-confinement step between “submodule name from configuration” and “filesystem path used for repository existence checks / open.” As a result, traversal segments in the submodule name directly influence which repository path is inspected and opened. Reproduce stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Key outputs are:
These outputs show that gitoxide is not only constructing a traversable path string. It is actually using the escaped path for repository existence checks and for opening a repository object. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This is best described as a path-traversal / repository-confusion issue in submodule repository resolution. This report does not claim command execution from this behavior alone. The demonstrated impact is repository redirection: callers that enumerate, inspect, or operate on submodules can be steered into using the wrong repository. Recommended fixTwo complementary fixes are advisable:
In short, submodule names may remain opaque configuration identifiers, but they should not be treated as trusted filesystem subpaths. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-82252
GHSA-pg4w-g64p-qwhj
May 05, 2026
gix and gitoxide's symlinked .gitmodules are followed and parsed from outside of the repository
High
Network
Low
None
None
Summaryattachments: pocs.zip When This is a repository-boundary violation. A caller using the high-level submodule API can believe it is reading repository-local submodule metadata, while the bytes are actually coming from an arbitrary file outside the repository tree. Root cause analysisThe relevant flow is:
The issue is not in the parser. The issue is that the worktree path is treated as an ordinary file without checking whether it is a symlink, and without checking whether the canonicalized target remains inside the repository worktree. Because Reproduction stepsUse the attached PoC zip that contains the
Important outputs include:
These outputs show that gitoxide parsed the submodule configuration from the symlink target outside the repository, not from repository-local bytes. ImpactConfirmed impact:
This report does not claim direct command execution from this code path by itself. The demonstrated impact is metadata injection across the repository boundary. Recommended fixA safe fix is to stop silently following symlinks for the worktree Reasonable options include:
At minimum, the worktree path should not silently follow symlinks to arbitrary external files. Fixed in
0.52.1
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-31130
GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6
RUSTSEC-2025-0021
Apr 04, 2025
gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks
6.8
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
None
None
Changed
None
High
None
Summarygitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. Detailsgitoxide uses the The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes. PoCThe following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:
The output is as follows:
The latter behaviour matches Git. Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources. ImpactAn attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities. This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including Fixed in
0.42.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-43785
GHSA-88g2-r9rw-g55h
RUSTSEC-2024-0364
Aug 22, 2024
gitoxide-core does not neutralize special characters for terminals
Low
Network
Low
None
SummaryThe Details
ANSI escape sequences are of particular concern because, when printed to a terminal, they can change colors, including to render subsequent text unreadable; reposition the cursor to write text in a different location, including where text has already been written; clear the terminal; set the terminal title-bar text to arbitrary values; render the terminal temporarily unusable; and other such operations. The effect is mostly an annoyance. But the author of a malicious repository who can predict how information from the repository may be accessed can cause files in the repository to be concealed or otherwise misrepresented, as well as rewrite all or part of error messages, or mimic error messages convincingly by repositioning the cursor and writing colored text. PoCOn a Unix-like system in a POSIX-compatible shell, run:
In the repository—or, if desired, in a clone of it, to show that this is exploitable by getting a user to clone an untrusted repository—run this command, which outputs entries in a three-column form showing type, hash, and filename:
Although the output is of that form, it does not appear to be. Instead, the output in a terminal looks like this, colorized to appear to be an error message, with
In some terminals, a beep or other sound will be made. In most terminals, the title bar text will be changed to To see what is actually produced,
That shows the effect on ImpactFor users who do not clone or operate in clones of untrusted repositories, there is no impact. Windows is much less affected than Unix-like systems due to limitations on what characters can appear in filenames, and because traditionally Windows terminals do not support as many ANSI escape sequences. Because different Although this is mainly exploitable on systems other than Windows, in the ability to produce misleading output this superficially resembles CVE-2024-35197. But this is much more limited, because:
References Updated Jan 21, 2025 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35197
GHSA-49jc-r788-3fc9
RUSTSEC-2024-0351
RUSTSEC-2024-0352
RUSTSEC-2024-0353
May 22, 2024
gix refs and paths with reserved Windows device names access the devices
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryOn Windows, fetching refs that clash with legacy device names reads from the devices, and checking out paths that clash with such names writes arbitrary data to the devices. This allows a repository, when cloned, to cause indefinite blocking or the production of arbitrary message that appear to have come from the application, and potentially other harmful effects under limited circumstances. DetailsIt is possible to create a Git repository that contains references or filenames that Windows treats as legacy DOS-style aliases for system devices. When such a repository is cloned:
Some such device names refer to devices that are often absent or inaccessible. But a few are guaranteed to be available, allowing some attacks to be carried out with low complexity. For both reading refs and writing paths, one important case is the console:
Another potentially important case is serial ports. For example, Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces covers most reserved names. PoCRef exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) with at least one commit. Use On a Windows system, clone the repository with However, if desired, input can be provided. Ending input with Ctrl+Z followed by Enter will cause it to be passed to the application. This will lead to an error message, the specific details of which vary by whether the input is empty or nonempty, and whether it matches or does not match the hexadecimal hash of the tagged commit. Path exampleCreate a repository on a non-Windows system (or in WSL) and commit a file named
While that example text serves to illustrate the risk, any distinctive text is sufficient to observe the vulnerability. Place the repository somewhere it can be cloned on Windows. As above, a On a Windows system, clone the repository with
The exact placement of the message is nondeterministic. It usually appears in that position, but may appear elsewhere, such as before the ImpactIf Windows is not used, or untrusted repositories are not cloned or otherwise used, then there is no impact. The impact is expected to be limited in common configurations, but may vary widely depending on what devices exist, how they are being used, how much knowledge an attacker has of the precise details of their use, and whether the user is likely to trust information that appears in a console. Accessing devices through refs is expected to be less dangerous than accessing them through filenames, since it is trivial to attempt to write arbitrary data using filenames. For attacks using the A minor degradation in availability may also be possible, such as with a very large file named Fixed in
0.36.0
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-35186
GHSA-7w47-3wg8-547c
RUSTSEC-2024-0348
RUSTSEC-2024-0349
RUSTSEC-2024-0350
May 22, 2024
gix traversal outside working tree enables arbitrary code execution
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryDuring checkout, gitoxide does not verify that paths point to locations in the working tree. A specially crafted repository can, when cloned, place new files anywhere writable by the application. DetailsAlthough
A number of alternatives that achieve the same effect are also possible, some of which correspond to specific vulnerabilities that have affected Git in the past:
When a checkout creates some files outside the repository directory but fails to complete, the repository directory is usually removed, but the outside files remain. PoCFor simplicity, these examples stage a stand-in file with a valid name, modify the index, and commit. The instructions assume Example: Downward traversal to install hooks
Then, on another or the same machine:
Note that the effect is not limited to modifying the current directory. The payload could be written to perform any action that the user who runs Example: Upward traversal to create a file above the working tree
Then, as above, on the same or another machine, clone the repository with a ImpactAny use of In use cases where no untrusted repository is ever cloned, this vulnerability has no impact. Furthermore, the impact of this vulnerability may be lower when Fixed in
0.36.0
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2024-32884
GHSA-98p4-xjmm-8mfh
RUSTSEC-2024-0335
Apr 15, 2024
gix-transport indirect code execution via malicious username
6.4
/ 10
Medium
Network
High
Low
None
Unchanged
High
Low
Low
Summary
DetailsThis is related to the patched vulnerability https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, but appears less severe due to a greater attack complexity. Since https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/pull/1032, As in Git, when an address is a URL of the form This is harder to exploit than GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, because the possibilities are constrained by:
However, an attacker who is able to cause a specially named This scenario is especially plausible because programs that operate on git repositories are often run in untrusted git repositories, sometimes even to operate on another repository. Situations where this is likely, such that an attacker could predict or arrange it, may for some applications include a malicious repository with a malicious submodule configuration. Other avenues of exploitation exist, but appear to be less severe. For example, the PoCTo reproduce the known case that facilitates arbitrary code execution, first create a file in the current directory named
where (Although the syntax permitted in the value of Then run:
Or:
(The In either case, the payload specified in Other cases may likewise be produced, in either of the above two forms of SSH addresses. For example, to create or append to the file
ImpactAs in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34, this would typically require user interaction to trigger an attempt to clone or otherwise connect using the malicious URL. Furthermore, known means of exploiting this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands require further preparatory steps to establish a specially named file in the current directory. The impact is therefore expected to be lesser, though it is difficult to predict it with certainty because it is not known exactly what scenarios will arise when using the Users who use applications that make use of
Fixed in
0.35
References Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev |
0.12.0
unknown
Dependencies (12)
+ 4 more
Changelog
Compare changes
|