BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-47712High confidence

Dulwich doesn't sanitize commit subjects in `porcelain.format_patch`

jelmer · dulwich

Official source article: GitHub GHSA-555P-6GRF-MH7F ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.

3.3LowCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix

Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 27 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityLowOperational priority:Low, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • EPSS is 0.18% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
  • Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
  • Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs jelmer dulwich and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: No default targetRemediation target: Normal maintenance

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Cross-source reconciliation

Remediation availability differs by product scope

Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 27 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Distribution package intelligence

Release-specific package status

Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.

5 package states
Package result overrides the generic status

BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 2 affected package states shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.

Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Distribution releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Debian trixietrixie · sourcedulwichAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian bookwormbookworm · sourcedulwichAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian forkyforky · sourcedulwichVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.1.2.5-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Debian sidsid · sourcedulwichVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.1.2.5-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivedulwichUnder evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing.Not published in this feedCanonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Open-source package ranges1 source-attributed range

These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.

Ecosystem and packageAffected rangeFirst fixed versionEvidence
pipdulwich>= 0.24.0, < 1.2.51.2.5GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 11 Jun 2026
Direct vendor intelligence

Authoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories

Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.

1 current
CVE-2026-47712 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitydulwich: Dulwich: Arbitrary file write via malicious commit subject in format_patch
25 known affected

The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.

  • ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
  • ansible-automation-platform-26/eda-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
  • ansible-automation-platform-26/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
  • ansible-automation-platform-27/controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
  • ansible-automation-platform-27/eda-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
  • resource-agents as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
  • resource-agents-aliyun as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
  • resource-agents-gcp as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
  • resource-agents-sap as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
  • resource-agents-sap-hana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
  • resource-agents-sap-hana-scaleout as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
  • resource-agents.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Summary
A flaw was found in Dulwich, a pure-Python implementation of Git file formats and protocols. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by crafting a malicious commit subject. When the `format_patch` function processes this subject, it could lead to an arbitrary file write, allowing the attacker to create or overwrite files outside the intended output directory. This could result in unauthorized modification of system files or data.
Remediation
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-36186

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionPatch only the product branches with a verified fix

Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 27 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
01

What, why and how

Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, dulwich.porcelain.format_patch(outdir=...) derives each patch filename from the commit's subject line. Prior to this fix, get_summary only replaced spaces with dashes - path separators (/, \), parent-directory components (..), and other filename-hostile characters (e.g. :) were preserved verbatim and passed straight into os.path.join(outdir, f"{i:04d}-{summary}.patch"). A malicious commit subject could therefore direct the generated patch file outside the requested outdir. This is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. dulwich.patch.get_summary now mirrors git's format_sanitized_subject: only `[A-Za-z0-9._]` are kept, runs of other characters collapse to a single -, consecutive . collapse to a single ., trailing ./- are stripped, and the result is length-limited. This makes the returned string safe to embed as a filename component, so format_patch can no longer be steered out of outdir via the commit subject. Until upgrading, callers that pass untrusted commits to porcelain.format_patch can use stdout=True and write the patch to a destination they control, rather than letting format_patch choose the filename; validate the chosen path before opening - e.g. compare os.path.realpath(returned_path) against os.path.realpath(outdir) and reject any patch whose resolved path is not inside outdir; and/or pre-screen commits and refuse to format any whose subject's first line contains /, \, .., or other characters that are not safe on the target filesystem.

What

Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, dulwich.porcelain.format_patch(outdir=...) derives each patch filename from the commit's subject line. Prior to this fix, get_summary only replaced spaces with dashes - path separators (/, \), parent-directory components (..), and other filename-hostile characters (e.g. :) were preserved verbatim and passed straight into os.path.join(outdir, f"{i:04d}-{summary}.patch"). A malicious commit subject could therefore direct the generated patch file outside the requested outdir. This is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. dulwich.patch.get_summary now mirrors git's format_sanitized_subject: only `[A-Za-z0-9._]` are kept, runs of other characters collapse to a single -, consecutive . collapse to a single ., trailing ./- are stripped, and the result is length-limited. This makes the returned string safe to embed as a filename component, so format_patch can no longer be steered out of outdir via the commit subject. Until upgrading, callers that pass untrusted commits to porcelain.format_patch can use stdout=True and write the patch to a destination they control, rather than letting format_patch choose the filename; validate the chosen path before opening - e.g. compare os.path.realpath(returned_path) against os.path.realpath(outdir) and reject any patch whose resolved path is not inside outdir; and/or pre-screen commits and refuse to format any whose subject's first line contains /, \, .., or other characters that are not safe on the target filesystem.

Why

Attacker-controlled path data is not constrained to the intended directory before the application accesses a file.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, dulwich.porcelain.format_patch(outdir=...) derives each patch filename from the commit's subject line. Prior to this fix, get_summary only replaced spaces with dashes - path separators (/, \), parent-directory components (..), and other filename-hostile characters (e.g. :) were preserved verbatim and passed straight into os.path.join(outdir, f"{i:04d}-{summary}.patch"). A malicious commit subject could therefore direct the generated patch file outside the requested outdir. This is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. dulwich.patch.get_summary now mirrors git's format_sanitized_subject: only `[A-Za-z0-9._]` are kept, runs of other characters collapse to a single -, consecutive . collapse to a single ., trailing ./- are stripped, and the result is length-limited. This makes the returned string safe to embed as a filename component, so format_patch can no longer be steered out of outdir via the commit subject. Until upgrading, callers that pass untrusted commits to porcelain.format_patch can use stdout=True and write the patch to a destination they control, rather than letting format_patch choose the filename; validate the chosen path before opening - e.g. compare os.path.realpath(returned_path) against os.path.realpath(outdir) and reject any patch whose resolved path is not inside outdir; and/or pre-screen commits and refuse to format any whose subject's first line contains /, \, .., or other characters that are not safe on the target filesystem.

Why

Attacker-controlled path data is not constrained to the intended directory before the application accesses a file.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
local access → Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
Required interaction required
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-22 ↗

CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'). The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
UnauthenticatedCWE-22
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

BSI · German · WID-SEC-2026-2455Oracle Solaris Drittanbieterkomponenten: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein entfernter, anonymer oder authentisierter Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in verschiedenen Komponenten von Drittanbietern in Oracle Solaris ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen.

Official advisory ↗
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Fix availability varies by product
Affected
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
Workaround
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 10 Jun 2026 · Last source change 11 Jun 2026, 12:42 UTC · CWE-22 · Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-36186
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-26/eda-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-26/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-27/controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-27/eda-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; resource-agents as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-aliyun as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-gcp as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-sap as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-sap-hana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-sap-hana-scaleout as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; sap-cluster-connector as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents-aliyun as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents-gcp as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents-paf as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; rhoai/odh-kserve-agent-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-autogluon-server-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-router-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-storage-initializer-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); python-dulwich.src as a component of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4
    After
    ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-26/eda-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-26/lightspeed-chatbot-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-27/controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; ansible-automation-platform-27/eda-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2; resource-agents as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-aliyun as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-gcp as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-sap as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-sap-hana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents-sap-hana-scaleout as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; sap-cluster-connector as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7; resource-agents as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents-aliyun as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents-gcp as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents-paf as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; resource-agents.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8; rhoai/odh-kserve-agent-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-autogluon-server-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-router-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); rhoai/odh-kserve-storage-initializer-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI); python-dulwich.src as a component of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4; python-dulwich.src as a component of Red Hat Satellite 6
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-47712 · cve.blacktree.nl