CVE-2026-42305
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 is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Versions starting with 0.10.0 and prior to 1.2.5 have an arbitrary file write leading to remote code execution when cloning or checking out a malicious Git repository on Windows. Dulwich's path-element validator accepted tree entries whose filenames contained bytes that Windows interprets as structural path syntax. Contributing configuration bugs made matters worse. The core.protectNTFS and core.protectHFS settings were looked up under a wrong option name and so user-set values were silently ignored, and core.protectNTFS only defaulted to true on Windows (Git upstream has defaulted it to true everywhere since CVE-2019-1353). Both have been corrected. Anyone who clones, fetches, or checks out an untrusted repository with Dulwich on Windows - either through the Dulwich CLI, porcelain.clone, or any downstream tool built on Dulwich - is impacted. POSIX clones are not directly exploitable (on POSIX \ is a literal filename byte), but a POSIX user can unknowingly propagate a malicious tree to Windows consumers via push or re-publication. This issue is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. There is no effective pre-patch workaround. On affected versions the core.protectNTFS configuration key was silently ignored, so setting it to true does not mitigate the issue. Users who cannot upgrade should avoid cloning, fetching, or checking out untrusted repositories with Dulwich on Windows. After upgrading the NTFS validator is on by default on every platform, so no additional configuration is required.
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 analysisA file path is built from user input without being confined, so sequences like “../” let an attacker step outside the intended directory. That can expose configuration, credentials, or source code, and in the worst case lets an attacker write files where they shouldn't. A durable fix resolves and canonicalises the path, then rejects anything that escapes a known-safe base directory.
General guidance for the path traversal class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
dbcve · scopedDulwich 1.2.5 or later
- Check current dulwich version using: pip show dulwich or pip list | grep dulwich
- Upgrade dulwich to version 1.2.5 or later using: pip install --upgrade dulwich>=1.2.5
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version: pip show dulwich
- Confirm the installed version is 1.2.5 or higher
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42305 — 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-2026-42305 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