GHSA-XRVJ-V92F-53GJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-08 23:43 – Updated: 2026-06-11 14:07
VLAI
Summary
Dulwich has unbounded memory allocation in receive-pack from crafted thin packs
Details

Impact

An uncontrolled-resource-consumption (memory exhaustion) denial-of-service vulnerability (CWE-400 / CWE-789).

A client with push access could push a tiny crafted thin pack (~174 bytes) whose delta header declares a huge dest_size. When dulwich ingested it via add_thin_pack / apply_delta, it would allocate hundreds of MB of memory based on that attacker-controlled size, with no relationship to the actual bytes received.

Who is impacted: Operators running a Dulwich-based Git server that exposes git-receive-pack (i.e. accepts pushes) - for example via dulwich.server functionality, the HTTP smart server, or anything built on ReceivePackHandler.

Patches

Patched in 1.2.5.

add_thin_pack now accepts a max_input_size keyword (bytes; 0/None = unlimited, matching git's semantics), and ReceivePackHandler reads receive.maxInputSize from the repository config and passes it through. Wire reads are counted and a PackInputTooLarge exception is raised once the cap is exceeded - equivalent to git index-pack --max-input-size.

Users should upgrade to Dulwich 1.2.5 or later and set receive.maxInputSize in their server's repository config to a sane bound for their environment.

Workarounds

On unpatched versions, receive.maxInputSize has no effect, so it cannot be used as a workaround. Until upgrading, operators should:

  • Restrict dulwich-receive-pack (push) access to trusted, authenticated clients only, or disable it entirely on servers that only need to serve fetches.
  • Run the server under an OS-level memory limit (e.g. ulimit, cgroups/MemoryMax, or a container memory limit) so a malicious push is killed rather than taking down the host.

Resources

  • git's receive.maxInputSize / git index-pack --max-input-size documentation
  • Reported by Liyi, Ziyue, Strick, Maurice and Chenchen @ University of Sydney
Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "dulwich"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.1.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.2.5"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-47734"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-789"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-08T23:43:42Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-10T23:16:48Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Impact\n\nAn uncontrolled-resource-consumption (memory exhaustion) denial-of-service vulnerability (CWE-400 / CWE-789).\n\nA client with push access could push a tiny crafted thin pack (~174 bytes)  whose delta header declares a huge   dest_size. When dulwich ingested it via  add_thin_pack / apply_delta, it would  allocate hundreds of MB of memory based on that attacker-controlled size, with no relationship to the actual bytes received.\n\nWho is impacted: Operators running a Dulwich-based Git server that exposes git-receive-pack (i.e. accepts pushes) -\nfor example via dulwich.server functionality, the HTTP  smart server, or anything built on ReceivePackHandler. \n\n## Patches\n\nPatched in 1.2.5.\n\nadd_thin_pack now accepts a max_input_size keyword (bytes; 0/None = unlimited, matching git\u0027s semantics), and ReceivePackHandler reads receive.maxInputSize from the repository config and passes it through. Wire reads are counted and a PackInputTooLarge exception is raised once the cap is exceeded - equivalent to git index-pack --max-input-size.\n\nUsers should upgrade to Dulwich 1.2.5 or later and set receive.maxInputSize in their server\u0027s repository config to a sane bound for their environment.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nOn unpatched versions, receive.maxInputSize has no effect, so it cannot be used as a workaround. Until upgrading, operators should:\n\n- Restrict dulwich-receive-pack (push) access to trusted, authenticated clients only, or disable it entirely on servers that only need to serve fetches.\n- Run the server under an OS-level memory limit (e.g. ulimit, cgroups/MemoryMax, or a container memory limit) so a malicious push is killed rather than taking down the host.\n\n##  Resources\n\n- git\u0027s receive.maxInputSize / git index-pack --max-input-size documentation \n- Reported by Liyi, Ziyue, Strick, Maurice and Chenchen @ University of Sydney",
  "id": "GHSA-xrvj-v92f-53gj",
  "modified": "2026-06-11T14:07:18Z",
  "published": "2026-06-08T23:43:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jelmer/dulwich/security/advisories/GHSA-xrvj-v92f-53gj"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-47734"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jelmer/dulwich"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jelmer/dulwich/releases/tag/dulwich-1.2.5"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Dulwich has unbounded memory allocation in receive-pack from crafted thin packs"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…