CVE-2026-38974
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedDulwich through 1.1.0 was found to be missing SSH host key verification in contrib/paramiko_vendor.py.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceDulwich, a Python Git implementation, lacks SSH host key verification in its paramiko_vendor.py module. This allows man-in-the-middle attacks where an attacker can intercept SSH connections by presenting a rogue SSH server, since the client does not verify the server's host key before establishing the connection.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Dulwich installation and versionRun 'pip show dulwich' or check your package manager to determine the installed version of DulwichAffected if The installed version falls within or below the unpatched version range (compare to the latest patched version)
-
Verify paramiko_vendor.py is in useCheck if your Dulwich configuration or codebase imports and uses the paramiko_vendor.py module for SSH operations (look for 'from dulwich.contrib import paramiko_vendor' or similar imports)Affected if paramiko_vendor.py is being used for SSH transport in your Git operations
-
Inspect paramiko_vendor.py for host key verificationExamine the paramiko_vendor.py source file (typically in site-packages/dulwich/contrib/) for host key verification logic. Search for 'host_key' or 'verify_host_key' parameters in the SSHClient initializationAffected if Host key verification is not implemented or is explicitly disabled in the paramiko_vendor.py code
-
Check for SSH connection configurationsReview any Dulwich configuration files or application code that establishes SSH connections to Git remotes. Look for explicit host key verification settingsAffected if SSH connections to Git remotes are configured without host key verification enabled
A user is affected if they use Dulwich for SSH Git operations with an unpatched version that lacks host key verification in paramiko_vendor.py, allowing potential interception of SSH connections.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataEnable host key verification in SSH connections or upgrade to a patched version of Dulwich that implements proper host key validation in paramiko_vendor.py.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-38974 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-38974 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data