### Impact When relying solely on a git commit ID (SHA-1 or SHA-256) to qualify if a checkout of a repository is equivalent to the state validated while adding its commit ID to a kas configuration, users may be tricked to check out a branch of the same name from this repository. This implies that the referenced repository has been taken over by an attacker and modified to carry such a branch. SHA-1 commits may also be replaced by creating hash collisions, so the primary impact of this issue is on SHA-256 commit IDs. ### Patches Commit https://github.com/siemens/kas/commit/4cb4a3d01122ffaec9feaae768a5814092f6f9b5 is resolving this issue. It has been released along with kas version 5.3. ### Workarounds Avoid relying solely on the commit ID for integrity validation of a repository that might become under control of a malicious 3rd party. If available, additional validate cryptographically signed commits or tags. Alternatively, mirror the repository to a save place, validate its integrity, and use this instead of the original one. ### Credits That such issues exist was already reported 3 years ago by Aditya Sirish A Yelgundhalli. At this point, no strong integrity checks for external repositories were in place in kas, and Siemens stated in the kas documentation that such attacks are considered out of scope. This hasn't changed for SHA-1 commits as explained above. If a repo provides SHA-256 commits, though, those may be considered strong enough (even if not providing authenticity proof) and can be affected by this issue.
### Impact When relying solely on a git commit ID (SHA-1 or SHA-256) to qualify if a checkout of a repository is equivalent to the state validated while adding its commit ID to a kas configuration, users may be tricked to check out a branch of the same name from this repository. This implies that the referenced repository has been taken over by an attacker and modified to carry such a branch. SHA-1 commits may also be replaced by creating hash collisions, so the primary impact of this issue is on SHA-256 commit IDs. ### Patches Commit https://github.com/siemens/kas/commit/4cb4a3d01122ffaec9feaae768a5814092f6f9b5 is resolving this issue. It has been released along with kas version 5.3. ### Workarounds Avoid relying solely on the commit ID for integrity validation of a repository that might become under control of a malicious 3rd party. If available, additional validate cryptographically signed commits or tags. Alternatively, mirror the repository to a save place, validate its integrity, and use this instead of the original one. ### Credits That such issues exist was already reported 3 years ago by Aditya Sirish A Yelgundhalli. At this point, no strong integrity checks for external repositories were in place in kas, and Siemens stated in the kas documentation that such attacks are considered out of scope. This hasn't changed for SHA-1 commits as explained above. If a repo provides SHA-256 commits, though, those may be considered strong enough (even if not providing authenticity proof) and can be affected by this issue.
Update kas to 5.3 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.
Local check
hol-guard supply-chain scankas checks out SHA-like git branches as valid commits affects kas (pip). Severity is low. ### Impact When relying solely on a git commit ID (SHA-1 or SHA-256) to qualify if a checkout of a repository is equivalent to the state validated while adding its commit ID to a kas configuration, users may be tricked to check out a branch of the same name from this repository. This implies that the referenced repository has been taken over by an attacker and modified to carry such a branch. SHA-1 commits may also be replaced by creating hash collisions, so the primary impact of this issue is on SHA-256 commit IDs. ### Patches Commit https://github.com/siemens/kas/commit/4cb4a3d01122ffaec9feaae768a5814092f6f9b5 is resolving this issue. It has been released along with kas version 5.3. ### Workarounds Avoid relying solely on the commit ID for integrity validation of a repository that might become under control of a malicious 3rd party. If available, additional validate cryptographically signed commits or tags. Alternatively, mirror the repository to a save place, validate its integrity, and use this instead of the original one. ### Credits That such issues exist was already reported 3 years ago by Aditya Sirish A Yelgundhalli. At this point, no strong integrity checks for external repositories were in place in kas, and Siemens stated in the kas documentation that such attacks are considered out of scope. This hasn't changed for SHA-1 commits as explained above. If a repo provides SHA-256 commits, though, those may be considered strong enough (even if not providing authenticity proof) and can be affected by this issue.
AI coding agents often install or upgrade packages automatically in pip. A low vulnerability in a dependency can be pulled into a project through a normal install or update without a human reviewing the change, expanding the blast radius from a single package to every agent workspace that depends on it.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| kaspip | <5.3 | 5.3 |
Fixed versions are reported by the source feed; confirm compatibility before updating.
Reported by GitHub Security Advisories (ghsa).
HOL Guard can help your team review package activity against supported protection paths.
Explore HOL GuardUpdate kas to 5.3 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.
Local check
hol-guard supply-chain scankas checks out SHA-like git branches as valid commits affects kas (pip). Severity is low. ### Impact When relying solely on a git commit ID (SHA-1 or SHA-256) to qualify if a checkout of a repository is equivalent to the state validated while adding its commit ID to a kas configuration, users may be tricked to check out a branch of the same name from this repository. This implies that the referenced repository has been taken over by an attacker and modified to carry such a branch. SHA-1 commits may also be replaced by creating hash collisions, so the primary impact of this issue is on SHA-256 commit IDs. ### Patches Commit https://github.com/siemens/kas/commit/4cb4a3d01122ffaec9feaae768a5814092f6f9b5 is resolving this issue. It has been released along with kas version 5.3. ### Workarounds Avoid relying solely on the commit ID for integrity validation of a repository that might become under control of a malicious 3rd party. If available, additional validate cryptographically signed commits or tags. Alternatively, mirror the repository to a save place, validate its integrity, and use this instead of the original one. ### Credits That such issues exist was already reported 3 years ago by Aditya Sirish A Yelgundhalli. At this point, no strong integrity checks for external repositories were in place in kas, and Siemens stated in the kas documentation that such attacks are considered out of scope. This hasn't changed for SHA-1 commits as explained above. If a repo provides SHA-256 commits, though, those may be considered strong enough (even if not providing authenticity proof) and can be affected by this issue.
AI coding agents often install or upgrade packages automatically in pip. A low vulnerability in a dependency can be pulled into a project through a normal install or update without a human reviewing the change, expanding the blast radius from a single package to every agent workspace that depends on it.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| kaspip | <5.3 | 5.3 |
Fixed versions are reported by the source feed; confirm compatibility before updating.
Reported by GitHub Security Advisories (ghsa).
HOL Guard can help your team review package activity against supported protection paths.
Explore HOL Guard