Skip to content

GHSA-8mxv-9xhp-86h4 BIT-rclone-2026-79780 CVE-2026-79780 GO-2026-6188

rclone: S3 Redirect Sanitization Omits IBM IAM Bearer Tokens and SSE-C Keys

Medium Go
Severity
6.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.15%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 3.91% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-319 Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information
CWE-522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials
Fix
1.75.0
Upgrade github.com/rclone/rclone to this version or later

Description

1. Summary

The S3 redirect callback strips X-Amz-Security-Token when a redirect changes scheme or host, but it does not strip IBM IAM bearer authorization or customer-provided encryption keys. Two independently validated paths remain:

  • a same-host HTTPS-to-HTTP redirect preserves Authorization: Bearer ... and exposes a reusable IBM IAM token to the plaintext network path;
  • a cross-origin redirect preserves SSE-C and copy-source SSE-C key headers.

The High rating is driven by the reusable IBM IAM bearer token. The SSE-C cross-origin disclosure is a secondary confidentiality issue. The meaningful threat is a trusted endpoint, gateway, or accelerator that emits an unsafe redirect, followed by an adjacent/on-path observer; describing the originally configured endpoint itself as the attacker would be weak because that endpoint already receives the request secrets.

2. Affected Assets & Attack Surface

  • S3 redirect policy: backend/s3/s3.go:1345-1379
  • IBM IAM signer: backend/s3/ibm_signer.go:28-40
  • SSE-C key preparation: backend/s3/s3.go:1821-1837
  • Affected operations: requests carrying IBM IAM authorization, SSE-C keys, or copy-source SSE-C keys
  • Confirmed affected version: <= v1.74.0-240-ga0c09f138

3. Technical Root Cause Analysis

s3CheckRedirect applies a one-header denylist:

if s3RedirectCrossesHost(req, via) {
    req.Header.Del("X-Amz-Security-Token")
}

Go removes Authorization on some hostname changes, but preserves it for a same-host redirect and does not treat a scheme downgrade as sufficient reason to remove it. Go also has no generic knowledge that the SSE-C headers contain raw encryption keys. The rclone callback recognizes the STS token but not these additional origin-bound secrets.

4. Proof-of-Concept & Evidence

Using the actual redirect callback:

  1. An HTTPS endpoint redirected to HTTP on the same hostname.
  2. The plaintext destination received the planted IBM bearer token and SSE-C headers.
  3. A separate redirect to an unrelated hostname caused Go to remove Authorization, but the destination still received both SSE-C key headers.
  4. In both cases, rclone removed the planted STS token, proving that the S3-specific callback executed while omitting the other secret classes.

The related GHSA-gx4c-2hqx-cw2r covers the STS downgrade path and confirms that rclone treats scheme changes as a credential boundary. It does not cover the IBM bearer or SSE-C variants retained here.

5. Impact Assessment

A captured IBM bearer token can authorize reads, writes, and deletes within its IAM scope. A disclosed SSE-C key can expose corresponding ciphertext available to the recipient; copy-source keys can expose protected source objects. The exact impact is limited by token policy and the attacker's access to encrypted objects.

6. Remediation Guidance

  • Reject every HTTPS-to-HTTP redirect before replay.
  • Do not automatically follow secret-bearing cross-origin redirects.
  • On any scheme, host, or effective-port change, remove all authorization, cookies, session tokens, SSE-C fields, copy-source SSE-C fields, and provider-specific credentials.
  • Where redirects are required, allowlist exact destinations and reconstruct/re-sign a new request.
  • Add redirect tests for every secret header class and for scheme, hostname, subdomain, and port changes.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/rclone/rclone
< 1.75.0
1.75.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

github.com/rclone/rclone Go → 1.75.0

go
go get github.com/rclone/rclone@v1.75.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 6.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Adjacent
Attack complexity
High
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Adjacent
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

CWE-319: Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information

The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Before transmitting, encrypt the data using reliable, confidentiality-protecting cryptographic protocols.
  • Implementation: When using web applications with SSL, use SSL for the entire session from login to logout, not just for the initial login page.
  • Implementation: When designing hardware platforms, ensure that approved encryption algorithms (such as those recommended by NIST) protect paths from security critical data to trusted user applications.
  • Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
  • Operation: Configure servers to use encrypted channels for communication, which may include SSL or other secure protocols.

CWE-522: Insufficiently Protected Credentials

The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
  • Architecture and Design: Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
  • Implementation: Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-38xv-hf3p-h7mq
rclone: source object names can escape the configured root on upload
Medium Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
GHSA-2p48-j3qc-rx9f
rclone: S3 multipart declared-length memory exhaustion
High Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
GHSA-p569-5gjg-9cmj
rclone: RC per-server auth-proxy bypass
Critical Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
GHSA-xwwr-4h3p-r22c
rclone serve s3: --auth-proxy without --auth-key authenticates nobody - full SigV4 signature bypass
Critical Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
GHSA-c476-6w5q-jw77
rclone: FTP cross-session auth-proxy backend confusion
High Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
GHSA-f8g7-2xjc-7mfh
rclone: Directory metadata (chmod/chown/chtimes) applied through a planted symlink in rclone local --links escapes the destination
High Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
GHSA-p6m2-r3w9-mpxw
rclone local: crafted Range request against a translated symlink panics (DoS)
Medium Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
GHSA-66hp-wgxq-6f5q
rclone archive/zip: Zip Slip via unsanitized zip entry names lets a malicious archive escape its own namespace
Medium Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone

Credits: GitHub: cyberlanc3r

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor