Skip to content

gitoxide does not detect SHA-1 collision attacks

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 4, 2025 in GitoxideLabs/gitoxide • Updated Apr 4, 2025

Package

cargo gitoxide (Rust)

Affected versions

< 0.42.0

Patched versions

0.42.0
cargo gitoxide-core (Rust)
< 0.46.0
0.46.0
cargo gix (Rust)
< 0.71.0
0.71.0
cargo gix-archive (Rust)
< 0.20.0
0.20.0
cargo gix-blame (Rust)
< 0.1.0
0.1.0
cargo gix-commitgraph (Rust)
< 0.27.0
0.27.0
cargo gix-config (Rust)
< 0.44.0
0.44.0
cargo gix-diff (Rust)
< 0.51.0
0.51.0
cargo gix-dir (Rust)
< 0.13.0
0.13.0
cargo gix-discover (Rust)
< 0.39.0
0.39.0
cargo gix-features (Rust)
< 0.41.0
0.41.0
cargo gix-filter (Rust)
< 0.18.0
0.18.0
cargo gix-fsck (Rust)
< 0.10.0
0.10.0
cargo gix-index (Rust)
< 0.39.0
0.39.0
cargo gix-merge (Rust)
< 0.4.0
0.4.0
cargo gix-negotiate (Rust)
< 0.19.0
0.19.0
cargo gix-object (Rust)
< 0.48.0
0.48.0
cargo gix-odb (Rust)
< 0.68.0
0.68.0
cargo gix-pack (Rust)
< 0.58.0
0.58.0
cargo gix-protocol (Rust)
< 0.49.0
0.49.0
cargo gix-ref (Rust)
< 0.51.0
0.51.0
cargo gix-revision (Rust)
< 0.33.0
0.33.0
cargo gix-revwalk (Rust)
< 0.19.0
0.19.0
cargo gix-status (Rust)
< 0.18.0
0.18.0
cargo gix-traverse (Rust)
< 0.45.0
0.45.0
cargo gix-worktree (Rust)
< 0.40.0
0.40.0
cargo gix-worktree-state (Rust)
< 0.18.0
0.18.0

Description

Summary

gitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks.

Details

gitoxide uses the sha1_smol or sha1 crate, both of which implement standard SHA-1 without any mitigations for collision attacks. This means that two distinct Git objects with colliding SHA-1 hashes would break the Git object model and integrity checks when used with gitoxide.

The SHA-1 function is considered cryptographically insecure. However, in the wake of the SHAttered attacks, this issue was mitigated in Git 2.13.0 in 2017 by using the sha1collisiondetection algorithm by default and producing an error when known SHA-1 collisions are detected. Git is in the process of migrating to using SHA-256 for object hashes, but this has not been rolled out widely yet and gitoxide does not support SHA-256 object hashes.

PoC

The following program demonstrates the problem, using the two SHAttered PDFs:

use sha1_checked::{CollisionResult, Digest};

fn sha1_oid_of_file(filename: &str) -> gix::ObjectId {
    let mut hasher = gix::features::hash::hasher(gix::hash::Kind::Sha1);
    hasher.update(&std::fs::read(filename).unwrap());
    gix::ObjectId::Sha1(hasher.digest())
}

fn sha1dc_oid_of_file(filename: &str) -> Result<gix::ObjectId, String> {
    // Matches Git’s behaviour.
    let mut hasher = sha1_checked::Builder::default().safe_hash(false).build();
    hasher.update(&std::fs::read(filename).unwrap());
    match hasher.try_finalize() {
        CollisionResult::Ok(digest) => Ok(gix::ObjectId::Sha1(digest.into())),
        CollisionResult::Mitigated(_) => unreachable!(),
        CollisionResult::Collision(digest) => Err(format!(
            "Collision attack: {}",
            gix::ObjectId::Sha1(digest.into()).to_hex()
        )),
    }
}

fn main() {
    dbg!(sha1_oid_of_file("shattered-1.pdf"));
    dbg!(sha1_oid_of_file("shattered-2.pdf"));
    dbg!(sha1dc_oid_of_file("shattered-1.pdf"));
    dbg!(sha1dc_oid_of_file("shattered-2.pdf"));
}

The output is as follows:

[src/main.rs:24:5] sha1_oid_of_file("shattered-1.pdf") = Sha1(38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a)
[src/main.rs:25:5] sha1_oid_of_file("shattered-2.pdf") = Sha1(38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a)
[src/main.rs:26:5] sha1dc_oid_of_file("shattered-1.pdf") = Err(
    "Collision attack: 38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a",
)
[src/main.rs:27:5] sha1dc_oid_of_file("shattered-2.pdf") = Err(
    "Collision attack: 38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a",
)

The latter behaviour matches Git.

Since the SHAttered PDFs are not in a valid format for Git objects, a direct proof‐of‐concept using higher‐level APIs cannot be immediately demonstrated without significant computational resources.

Impact

An attacker with the ability to mount a collision attack on SHA-1 like the SHAttered or SHA-1 is a Shambles attacks could create two distinct Git objects with the same hash. This is becoming increasingly affordable for well‐resourced attackers, with the Shambles researchers in 2020 estimating $45k for a chosen‐prefix collision or $11k for a classical collision, and projecting less than $10k for a chosen‐prefix collision by 2025. The result could be used to disguise malicious repository contents, or potentially exploit assumptions in the logic of programs using gitoxide to cause further vulnerabilities.

This vulnerability affects any user of gitoxide, including gix-* library crates, that reads or writes Git objects.

References

@EliahKagan EliahKagan published to GitoxideLabs/gitoxide Apr 4, 2025
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Apr 4, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 4, 2025
Reviewed Apr 4, 2025
Last updated Apr 4, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(3rd percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2025-31130

GHSA ID

GHSA-2frx-2596-x5r6

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.