{
  "affected": [
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "aarch64": [
          "git-lfs-3.6.1-2.oe2403sp1.aarch64.rpm"
        ],
        "src": [
          "git-lfs-3.6.1-2.oe2403sp1.src.rpm"
        ],
        "x86_64": [
          "git-lfs-3.6.1-2.oe2403sp1.x86_64.rpm"
        ]
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP1",
        "name": "git-lfs",
        "purl": "pkg:rpm/openEuler/git-lfs\u0026distro=openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.6.1-2.oe2403sp1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "severity": "Critical"
  },
  "details": "Git Large File Storage (LFS) replaces large files such as audio samples, videos, datasets, and graphics with text pointers inside Git, while storing the file contents on a remote server.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nThe filepath.Walk and filepath.WalkDir functions are documented as not following symbolic links, but both functions are susceptible to a TOCTOU (time of check/time of use) race condition where a portion of the path being walked is replaced with a symbolic link while the walk is in progress.(CVE-2024-8244)\n\nGitk is a Tcl/Tk based Git history browser. Starting with 1.7.0, when a user clones an untrusted repository and runs gitk without additional command arguments, files for which the user has write permission can be created and truncated. The option Support per-file encoding must have been enabled before in Gitk\u0026apos;s Preferences. This option is disabled by default. The same happens when Show origin of this line is used in the main window (regardless of whether Support per-file encoding is enabled or not). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.43.7, 2.44.4, 2.45.4, 2.46.4, 2.47.3, 2.48.2, 2.49.1, and 2.50.1.(CVE-2025-27613)\n\nProxy-Authorization and Proxy-Authenticate headers persisted on cross-origin redirects potentially leaking sensitive information.(CVE-2025-4673)\n\nIf the PATH environment variable contains paths which are executables (rather than just directories), passing certain strings to LookPath (\u0026quot;\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;.\u0026quot;, and \u0026quot;..\u0026quot;), can result in the binaries listed in the PATH being unexpectedly returned.(CVE-2025-47906)\n\nWhen using http.CrossOriginProtection, the AddInsecureBypassPattern method can unexpectedly bypass more requests than intended. CrossOriginProtection then skips validation, but forwards the original request path, which may be served by a different handler without the intended security protections.(CVE-2025-47910)\n\nThe Parse function permits values other than IPv6 addresses to be included in square brackets within the host component of a URL. RFC 3986 permits IPv6 addresses to be included within the host component, enclosed within square brackets. For example: \u0026quot;http://[::1]/\u0026quot;. IPv4 addresses and hostnames must not appear within square brackets. Parse did not enforce this requirement.(CVE-2025-47912)\n\nSSH Agent servers do not validate the size of messages when processing new identity requests, which may cause the program to panic if the message is malformed due to an out of bounds read.(CVE-2025-47914)\n\nGit is a fast, scalable, distributed revision control system with an unusually rich command set that provides both high-level operations and full access to internals. When cloning a repository Git knows to optionally fetch a bundle advertised by the remote server, which allows the server-side to offload parts of the clone to a CDN. The Git client does not perform sufficient validation of the advertised bundles, which allows the remote side to perform protocol injection. This protocol injection can cause the client to write the fetched bundle to a location controlled by the adversary. The fetched content is fully controlled by the server, which can in the worst case lead to arbitrary code execution. The use of bundle URIs is not enabled by default and can be controlled by the bundle.heuristic config option. Some cases of the vulnerability require that the adversary is in control of where a repository will be cloned to. This either requires social engineering or a recursive clone with submodules. These cases can thus be avoided by disabling recursive clones. This vulnerability is fixed in v2.43.7, v2.44.4, v2.45.4, v2.46.4, v2.47.3, v2.48.2, v2.49.1, and v2.50.1.(CVE-2025-48385)\n\nSSH servers parsing GSSAPI authentication requests do not validate the number of mechanisms specified in the request, allowing an attacker to cause unbounded memory consumption.(CVE-2025-58181)\n\nA vulnerability was found in Google Go up to 1.25.1 (Programming Language Software). It has been rated as problematic.Using CWE to declare the problem leads to CWE-770. The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated, in violation of the intended security policy for that actor.Impacted is availability.Upgrading to version 1.25.2 eliminates this vulnerability.(CVE-2025-58183)\n\nParsing a maliciously crafted DER payload could allocate large amounts of memory, causing memory exhaustion.(CVE-2025-58185)\n\nDespite HTTP headers having a default limit of 1MB, the number of cookies that can be parsed does not have a limit. By sending a lot of very small cookies such as \u0026quot;a=;\u0026quot;, an attacker can make an HTTP server allocate a large amount of structs, causing large memory consumption.(CVE-2025-58186)\n\nDue to the design of the name constraint checking algorithm, the processing time of some inputs scale non-linearly with respect to the size of the certificate. This affects programs which validate arbitrary certificate chains.(CVE-2025-58187)\n\nWhen Conn.Handshake fails during ALPN negotiation the error contains attacker controlled information (the ALPN protocols sent by the client) which is not escaped.(CVE-2025-58189)\n\nThe processing time for parsing some invalid inputs scales non-linearly with respect to the size of the input. This affects programs which parse untrusted PEM inputs.(CVE-2025-61723)\n\nThe Reader.ReadResponse function constructs a response string through repeated string concatenation of lines. When the number of lines in a response is large, this can cause excessive CPU consumption.(CVE-2025-61724)\n\nThe net/url package in the Go standard library does not impose a limit on the number of query parameters in a query string. While the overall size of query parameters in URLs is generally constrained by the maximum request header size, the net/http.Request.ParseForm method is capable of parsing large URL-encoded forms. An attacker can exploit this by submitting a form containing an excessive number of unique query parameters, leading to disproportionate memory consumption and potentially causing a Denial of Service (DoS) condition in the affected application.(CVE-2025-61726)\n\nAn excluded subdomain constraint in a certificate chain does not restrict the usage of wildcard SANs in the leaf certificate. For example a constraint that excludes the subdomain test.example.com does not prevent a leaf certificate from claiming the SAN *.example.com.(CVE-2025-61727)\n\nWithin HostnameError.Error(), when constructing an error string, there is no limit to the number of hosts that will be printed out. Furthermore, the error string is constructed by repeated string concatenation, leading to quadratic runtime. Therefore, a certificate provided by a malicious actor can result in excessive resource consumption.(CVE-2025-61729)\n\nDuring session resumption in crypto/tls, if the underlying Config has its ClientCAs or RootCAs fields mutated between the initial handshake and the resumed handshake, the resumed handshake may succeed when it should have failed. This may happen when a user calls Config.Clone and mutates the returned Config, or uses Config.GetConfigForClient. This can cause a client to resume a session with a server that it would not have resumed with during the initial handshake, or cause a server to resume a session with a client that it would not have resumed with during the initial handshake.(CVE-2025-68121)\n\n[\u0026apos;announces:\u0026apos;, \u0026quot;We have just released Go versions 1.26.1 and 1.25.8, minor point releases.\\n\\nThese releases include 5 security fixes following the security policy:\\n\\n  * crypto/x509: incorrect enforcement of email constraints\\n\\n    When verifying a certificate chain which contains a certificate containing\\n    multiple email address constraints (composed of the full email address)\\n    which share common local portions (the portion of the address before the \u0026apos;@\u0026apos;\\n    character) but different domain portions (the portion of the address after\\n    the \u0026apos;@\u0026apos; character), these constraints will not be properly applied, and only\\n    the last constraint will be considered.\\n\\n    This can allow certificates in the chain containing email addresses which\\n    are either not permitted or excluded by the relevant constraints to be\\n    returned by calls to Certificate.Verify. Since the name constraint checks\\n    happen after chain building is complete, this only applies to certificate\\n    chains which chain to trusted roots (root certificates either in\\n    VerifyOptions.Roots or in the system root certificate pool), requiring a\\n    trusted CA to issue certificates containing either not permitted or\\n    excluded email addresses.\\n\\n    This issue only affects Go 1.26.\\n\\n    Thanks to Jakub Ciolek for reporting this issue.\\n\\n    This is CVE-2026-27137 and Go issue\u0026quot;, \u0026apos;.\\n\\n  * crypto/x509: panic in name constraint checking for malformed certificates\\n\\n    Certificate verification can panic when a certificate in the chain has an\\n    empty DNS name and another certificate in the chain has excluded name\\n    constraints. This can crash programs that are either directly verifying\\n    X.509 certificate chains, or those that use TLS.\\n\\n    Since the name constraint checks happen after chain building is complete,\\n    this only applies to certificate chains which chain to trusted roots (root\\n    certificates either in VerifyOptions.Roots or in the system root certificate\\n    pool), requiring a trusted CA to issue certificates containing malformed DNS\\n    names.\\n\\n    This issue only affects Go 1.26.\\n\\n    Thanks to Jakub Ciolek for reporting this issue.\\n\\n    This is CVE-2026-27138 and Go issue\u0026apos;, \u0026apos;.\\n\\n  * html/template: URLs in meta content attribute actions are not escaped\\n\\n    Actions which insert URLs into the content attribute of HTML meta tags are\\n    not escaped. This can allow XSS if the meta tag also has an http-equiv\\n    attribute with the value \u0026quot;refresh\u0026quot;.\\n\\n    A new GODEBUG setting has been added, htmlmetacontenturlescape, which can be\\n    used to disable escaping URLs in actions in the meta content attribute which\\n    follow \u0026quot;url=\u0026quot; by setting htmlmetacontenturlescape=0.\\n\\n    This is CVE-2026-27142 and Go issue\u0026apos;, \u0026apos;.\\n\\n  * net/url: reject IPv6 literal not at start of host\\n\\n    The Go standard library function net/url.Parse insufficiently\\n    validated the host/authority component and accepted some invalid URLs\\n    by effectively treating garbage before an IP-literal as ignorable.\\n    The function should have rejected this as invalid.\\n\\n    To prevent this behavior, net/url.Parse now rejects IPv6 literals\\n    that do not appear at the start of the host subcomponent of a URL.\\n\\n    Thanks to Masaki Hara (\u0026apos;, \u0026apos;) of Wantedly.\\n\\n    This is CVE-2026-25679 and Go issue\u0026apos;, \u0026apos;.\\n\\n  * os: FileInfo can escape from a Root\\n\\n    On Unix platforms, when listing the contents of a directory using\\n    File.ReadDir or File.Readdir the returned FileInfo could reference\\n    a file outside of the Root in which the File was opened.\\n\\n    The contents of the FileInfo were populated using the lstat system\\n    call, which takes the path to the file as a parameter. If a component\\n    of the full path of the file described by the FileInfo is replaced with\\n    a symbolic link, the target of the lstat can be directed to another\\n    location on the filesystem.\\n\\n    The impact of this escape is limited to reading metadata provided by\\n    lstat from arbitrary locations on the filesystem. This could be used\\n    to p(CVE-2026-25679)\n\nWhen verifying a certificate chain which contains a certificate containing multiple email address constraints which share common local portions but different domain portions, these constraints will not be properly applied, and only the last constraint will be considered.(CVE-2026-27137)\n\nDue to missing nil check, sending 0x0a-0x0f HTTP/2 frames will cause a running server to panic(CVE-2026-27141)\n\nDuring chain building, the amount of work that is done is not correctly limited when a large number of intermediate certificates are passed in VerifyOptions.Intermediates, which can lead to a denial of service. This affects both direct users of crypto/x509 and users of crypto/tls.(CVE-2026-32280)\n\nValidating certificate chains which use policies is unexpectedly inefficient when certificates in the chain contain a very large number of policy mappings, possibly causing denial of service. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root CA in the VerifyOptions.Roots CertPool, or in the system certificate pool.(CVE-2026-32281)\n\nOn Linux, if the target of Root.Chmod is replaced with a symlink while the chmod operation is in progress, Chmod can operate on the target of the symlink, even when the target lies outside the root. The Linux fchmodat syscall silently ignores the AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag, which Root.Chmod uses to avoid symlink traversal. Root.Chmod checks its target before acting and returns an error if the target is a symlink lying outside the root, so the impact is limited to cases where the target is replaced with a symlink between the check and operation.(CVE-2026-32282)\n\nWhen verifying a certificate chain containing excluded DNS constraints, these constraints are not correctly applied to wildcard DNS SANs which use a different case than the constraint. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root CA in the VerifyOptions.Roots CertPool, or in the system certificate pool.(CVE-2026-33810)\n\nWhen using LookupCNAME with the cgo DNS resolver, a very long CNAME response can trigger a double-free of C memory and a crash.(CVE-2026-33811)\n\nA vulnerability was found in the encoding/asn1 package in Go. Enforce a recursion limit in Unmarshal to prevent stack exhaustion when parsing deeply-nested, recursive structures. An attacker could provide a specially crafted, deeply-nested Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) structure, leading to excessive recursion during the Unmarshal operation. This could result in stack exhaustion and a Denial of Service (DoS) condition.(CVE-2026-33818)\n\nWhen returning errors, functions in the net/textproto package would include its input as part of the error. This might allow an attacker to inject misleading content to errors that are printed or logged.(CVE-2026-42507)\n\nParsing an invalid SVCB or HTTPS RR can panic when the size of a parameter value overflows the message buffer.(CVE-2026-46600)\n\nWhen a server is configured to support unencrypted HTTP/2, it reads a few bytes from each new connection to see if they contain the HTTP/2 client preface. ReadHeaderTimeout is unexpectedly not being applied when doing this. This oversight could allow a remote attacker to maintain open connections indefinitely, potentially leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) by exhausting server resources.(CVE-2026-56853)\n\nA flaw was found in the encoding/xml package of Go. The DecodeElement function failed to correctly track recursion depth, causing the depth counter to reset and never fire, which could lead to stack exhaustion. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing a specially crafted XML input, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) for the affected application.(CVE-2026-56859)\n\nHandshake messages, such as KeyUpdate, are always considered as state-advancing, regardless of whether a handshake has been completed or not. As a result, a malicious client can keep sending KeyUpdate messages to force the server to keep performing key derivation operations indefinitely.(CVE-2026-56862)",
  "id": "OESA-2026-3879",
  "modified": "2026-09-20T13:22:51Z",
  "published": "2026-09-20T13:22:51Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-3879"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-8244"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27613"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4673"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47906"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47910"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47912"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47914"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48385"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58181"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58183"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58185"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58186"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58187"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58189"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61723"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61724"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61726"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61727"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61729"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68121"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25679"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-27137"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-27141"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32280"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32281"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32282"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33810"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33811"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33818"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42507"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-46600"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56853"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56859"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56862"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.7.2",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "git-lfs security update",
  "upstream": [
    "CVE-2024-8244",
    "CVE-2025-27613",
    "CVE-2025-4673",
    "CVE-2025-47906",
    "CVE-2025-47910",
    "CVE-2025-47912",
    "CVE-2025-47914",
    "CVE-2025-48385",
    "CVE-2025-58181",
    "CVE-2025-58183",
    "CVE-2025-58185",
    "CVE-2025-58186",
    "CVE-2025-58187",
    "CVE-2025-58189",
    "CVE-2025-61723",
    "CVE-2025-61724",
    "CVE-2025-61726",
    "CVE-2025-61727",
    "CVE-2025-61729",
    "CVE-2025-68121",
    "CVE-2026-25679",
    "CVE-2026-27137",
    "CVE-2026-27141",
    "CVE-2026-32280",
    "CVE-2026-32281",
    "CVE-2026-32282",
    "CVE-2026-33810",
    "CVE-2026-33811",
    "CVE-2026-33818",
    "CVE-2026-42507",
    "CVE-2026-46600",
    "CVE-2026-56853",
    "CVE-2026-56859",
    "CVE-2026-56862"
  ]
}