GitHub RCE Vulnerability: CVE-2026-3854 Breakdown

(wiz.io)

57 points | by bo0tzz 2 hours ago

4 comments

  • WASDx 5 minutes ago
    I was impressed enough by AI finding vulnerabilities in source code, but doing it in binary executables is just amazing. This has so much potential, good and bad.

    And yet another lesson to not treat data as instructions. Sanitize all user input!

  • bananapub 1 hour ago
    > April 28, 2026

    > GitHub Enterprise Server customers should upgrade immediately - at the time of this writing, our data indicates that 88% of instances are still vulnerable

    > Upgrade to GHES version 3.19.3 or later

    https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-server@3.19/admin/rele... :

    > Enterprise Server 3.19.3 - March 10, 2026

    88% of on-prem customers haven't applied a critical security fix from 7 weeks ago, that seems ... bad.

    • brianmcnulty 14 minutes ago
      I assume a fair amount of these on-prem customers restrict access to their GHES instance to be behind corporate VPN or something similar and are planning a date to upgrade their instance that won't affect operations.

      Any public instance should update immediately though, it's not very hard to put together how to repro the vulnerability on your own from what they provide in the article and the fact that GitHub Enterprise source is publicly available.

    • bombcar 22 minutes ago
      If you're in the enterprise you can update something outside of the normal schedule and guarantee blow up everything (and be blamed) or you can stick with the schedule and hope for the best.

      Guess which is usually picked ...

    • pixl97 1 hour ago
      Question is how fragile the upgrade process is in large installations. In other enterprise software messing around with large amounts of data I've seen the smallest things break the install and leaving the OPs team rolling back. Was like SharePoint in the past, you were rolling a dice when upgrading it.
      • chucky_z 59 minutes ago
        It's incredibly fragile. It breaks a vast majority of the time and takes multiple rounds of support on-call to upgrade typically.
        • formerly_proven 11 minutes ago
          Unsurprising for a fourth tier on-prem created by cutting a continuously deployed application into releases.
  • latchkey 2 hours ago
    People keep wanting to replace GitHub, but with what?

    If GH is getting RCE's this late in the game who wants to take the chance something else won't?

    • skrrtww 27 minutes ago
      A "reasonable" answer is probably a primary self-hosted Forgejo instance as the canonical forge, while using GitHub as a mirror solely to take advantage of its free CI, while that lasts, while hosting secrets with a dedicated secret-hosting provider (I don't know what the provider du jour for this is these days).
      • embedding-shape 2 minutes ago
        > solely to take advantage of its free CI, while that lasts

        Eh, if you want to be able to continue working, deploy and what not as normal during weekdays, I'd suggest also moving to Forgejo Actions if you're moving anyways. Not 100% compatible, but more or less the same, and even paying the same but with dedicated hardware you'd get way faster runners.

      • latchkey 20 minutes ago
        Replace a whole 24/7 team of devops people with myself?

        As much as I'd like to believe that I'm worthy, I'm not.

        • skrrtww 15 minutes ago
          If the primary forge's only job is to host the actual Git infrastructure (the code, the MRs, the issues, maybe a wiki), it's a lot more simple than GitHub, and probably more within the scope of what people can reasonably administer themselves.
    • Caligatio 35 minutes ago
      I am personally now drawing a clear delineation between projects for my internal consumption (e.g. ansible scripts) and projects that have potential use for the general populace. For the prior, I now host a private Forgejo instance. For the latter, I'll put it on GitHub but mirror it to my Forgejo instance.

      I was pleasantly shocked that Forgejo is literally a single binary with a relatively easy config. All my internal services reference my Forgejo instance so, if I need to bail on GitHub, it's low friction for me.

    • gtech1 59 minutes ago
      GitLab ?
    • chucky_z 58 minutes ago
      .... git?

      replace it with git.

      if you want a whole ui you can use something like forgejo which has far fewer features likely leading to less issues.

      • debugnik 39 minutes ago
        You probably meant Forgejo. Codeberg is a Forgejo instance exclusive for FOSS projects.
      • latchkey 55 minutes ago
        i want what github offers.
        • heliumtera 53 minutes ago
          Enjoy your experience, there will certainly be no end to it.
          • latchkey 50 minutes ago
            I've had my account since 2008. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            updated: changed the date to 2008.

            my account shows 2001, but that's probably from projects I moved over... proof: https://github.com/lookfirst

            • seanclayton 2 minutes ago
              Just be careful your patronage doesn't lead to a sunk cost fallacy---a middle manager might just be betting on it
            • necubi 42 minutes ago
              GitHub launched in 2008, so that seems unlikely?
  • willworktill4pm 1 hour ago
    GitHub case will be thought in schools how to screw up almost monopolistic position in the market in couple years. This is beyond bonkers.
    • hnlmorg 34 minutes ago
      Only if they take Skype off the syllabus first.