CVE-2022-24826: Git LFS can execute a binary from the current directory on Windows
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 32/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 2.2% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 82.6% of all records.
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. No account or password is required. A user must open a link or visit a page. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: git-lfs git-lfs 3.1.3.
- Severity is disputed: the assigning authority (CNA) scores it 9.8, NVD 7.8.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to git-lfs git-lfs 3.1.3 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
On Windows, if Git LFS operates on a malicious repository with a `..exe` file as well as a file named `git.exe`, and `git.exe` is not found in `PATH`, the `..exe` program will be executed, permitting the attacker to execute arbitrary code. This does not affect Unix systems. Similarly, if the malicious repository contains files named `..exe` and `cygpath.exe`, and `cygpath.exe` is not found in `PATH`, the `..exe` program will be executed when certain Git LFS commands are run. More generally, if the current working directory contains any file with a base name of `.` and a file extension from `PATHEXT` (except `.bat` and `.cmd`), and also contains another file with the same base name as a program Git LFS intends to execute (such as `git`, `cygpath`, or `uname`) and any file extension from `PATHEXT` (including `.bat` and `.cmd`), then, on Windows, when Git LFS attempts to execute the intended program the `..exe`, `..com`, etc., file will be executed instead, but only if the intended program is not found in any directory listed in `PATH`. The vulnerability occurs because when Git LFS detects that the program it intends to run does not exist in any directory listed in `PATH` then Git LFS passes an empty string as the executable file path to the Go `os/exec` package, which contains a bug such that, on Windows, it prepends the name of the current working directory (i.e., `.`) to the empty string without adding a path separator, and as a result searches in that directory for a file with the base name `.` combined with any file extension from `PATHEXT`, executing the first one it finds. (The reason `..bat` and `..cmd` files are not executed in the same manner is that, although the Go `os/exec` package tries to execute them just as it does a `..exe` file, the Microsoft Win32 API `CreateProcess()` family of functions have an undocumented feature in that they apparently recognize when a caller is attempting to execute a batch script file and instead run the `cmd.exe` command interpreter, passing the full set of command line arguments as parameters. These are unchanged from the command line arguments set by Git LFS, and as such, the intended program's name is the first, resulting in a command line like `cmd.exe /c git`, which then fails.) Git LFS has resolved this vulnerability by always reporting an error when a program is not found in any directory listed in `PATH` rather than passing an empty string to the Go `os/exec` package in this case. The bug in the Go `os/exec` package has been reported to the Go project and is expected to be patched after this security advisory is published. The problem was introduced in version 2.12.1 and is patched in version 3.1.3. Users of affected versions should upgrade to version 3.1.3. There are currently no known workarounds at this time.
- Published
- Apr 19, 2022
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 2.2% · 82th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-426
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 31 / 40 · 7.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 2.2%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 7.8
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 9.8
- 2.0 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| git large file storage project | git large file storage | cpe:2.3:a:git_large_file_storage_project:git_large_file_storage |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- git large file storage project git large file storage2.12.1 and later · before 3.1.3
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
git-lfs git-lfs
- 3.1.3affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs | from 2.12.1 | — |
| Go | github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/v3 | from 3.0.0 · before 3.1.3 | 3.1.3 |
Same product
git large file storage project: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-27955Git LFS 2.12.0 allows Remote Code Execution.64This week
- CVE-2017-17831GitHub Git LFS before 2.1.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via an ssh URL with an initial dash character in the hostn36Monitor
- CVE-2021-21237Git LFS can execute a Git binary from the current directory on Windows31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| git-lfs git-lfs | 3.1.3 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| Go:github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/v3 | 3.1.3 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- A user must open a link or visit a page.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-426 · Untrusted Search PathCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.