GHSA-PMWQ-PJRM-6P5R

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-08 22:24 – Updated: 2026-05-08 22:24
VLAI?
Summary
in-toto-golang and in-toto-python have inconsistent negation behavior
Details

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?

in-toto-golang and in-toto-python both support glob patterns in artifact rules to indicate the artifacts that a rule applies to. Both support negations in character classes to indicate what should not be matched, but they used different operators to indicate the negation. in-toto-python uses ! while in-toto-golang used ^. A layout authored with the expectations of one implementation can therefore exhibit different behavior in the other implementation.

This impacts users in a specific set of circumstances where two different implementations are used to verify the same layout + attestation bundle at different stages of the same pipeline. As a rule of thumb, we advise using a single implementation across all aspects of a pipeline, from layout creation to pipeline execution and verification to prevent this class of bugs.

Patches

Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?

in-toto-golang has been updated to use ! instead of ^ to indicate negation. See https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang/pull/462. This is part of v0.11.0.

Severity ?
4.1 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.11.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-168"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-08T22:24:19Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n_What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_\n\nin-toto-golang and in-toto-python both support glob patterns in artifact rules to indicate the artifacts that a rule applies to. Both support negations in character classes to indicate what should *not* be matched, but they used different operators to indicate the negation. in-toto-python uses `!` while in-toto-golang used `^`. A layout authored with the expectations of one implementation can therefore exhibit different behavior in the other implementation.\n\nThis impacts users in a specific set of circumstances where two different implementations are used to verify the same layout + attestation bundle at different stages of the same pipeline. As a rule of thumb, we advise using a single implementation across all aspects of a pipeline, from layout creation to pipeline execution and verification to prevent this class of bugs.\n\n### Patches\n_Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_\n\nin-toto-golang has been updated to use `!` instead of `^` to indicate negation. See https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang/pull/462. This is part of v0.11.0.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r",
  "modified": "2026-05-08T22:24:19Z",
  "published": "2026-05-08T22:24:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang/security/advisories/GHSA-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang/pull/462"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang/commit/36d782ffb2ca3adbffcdce1fd971c23319dd4469"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "in-toto-golang and in-toto-python have inconsistent negation behavior"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

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.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.