But you would expect running "git status" or "git ls-files" in the unzipped directory to completely pwn your system? Probably not either.

If you don't trust git, you can remove from your system or configure emacs not to use it. If you are worried about unsuspecting people with both git and emacs getting into trouble when downloading and interacting with untrusted malware from the internet, the correct solution is to add better safeguards in git before executing hooks. But you did not report this to the git project (where even minor research beyond Claude Code would reveal to you that this has already been discussed in the git community).

I suspect that what happened here was that (1) you asked Claude to find RCEs in Emacs (2) Claude, always eager to please, told you that it indeed has found an RCE in Emacs and conjured up a convincing report with included PoC (3) since Claude told you it had found an RCE "in Emacs", you thought "success!", didn't think critically about it and simply submitted Claude's report to the Emacs project.

Had you instead asked Claude to find RCEs in git itself and it told you about git hooks, you probably would not have turned around and submitted vulnerability reports to all tools and editors that ever call a git command.

▲

cryptbe 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>But you would expect running "git status" or "git ls-files" in the unzipped directory to completely pwn your system? Probably not either.

That’s fair, but it would be pretty unusual for me to run Git commands in a directory I’m not actively working on. On the other hand, I open files from random folders all the time without really thinking about it, so that scenario feels much more realistic.

	▲	chrismorgan 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s extremely common for shell prompts to integrate Git status for the working directory. Who’s responsible for the vulnerability? Your text editor? The version control system with a useful feature that also happens to be a vulnerability if run on a malicious repository? The thing you extracted the repository with? The thing you downloaded the malicious repository with? Windows + NTFS has a solution, sometimes called the “mark of the web”: add a Zone.Identifier alternate data stream to files. And that’s the way you could mostly fix the vulnerability: a world where curl sets that on the downloaded file, tar propagates it to all of the extracted files, and Git ignores (and warns about) config and hooks in marked files. But figuring out where the boundaries of propagation lie would be tricky and sometimes controversial, and would break some people’s workflows.