GHSA-mx42-j6wv-px98 CVE-2026-39360
RustFS has an authorization bypass in multipart UploadPartCopy enables cross-bucket object exfiltration
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.20%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 10.07% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
RustFS contains a missing authorization check in the multipart copy path (UploadPartCopy). A low-privileged user who cannot read objects from a victim bucket can still exfiltrate victim objects by copying them into an attacker-controlled multipart upload and completing the upload.
This breaks tenant isolation in multi-user / multi-tenant deployments.
Impact
Unauthorized cross-bucket / cross-tenant data exfiltration (Confidentiality: High).
An attacker with only minimal permissions on their own bucket (multipart upload + Put/Get on destination objects) can copy and retrieve objects from a victim bucket without having s3:GetObject (or equivalent) permission on the source.
In the attached PoC, the attacker successfully exfiltrates a 5MB private object and proves integrity via matching SHA256 and size.
Threat Model (Realistic)
- Victim tenant/user owns a bucket (e.g.,
victim-bucket-*) and stores private objects (e.g.,private/finance_dump.bin). - Attacker tenant/user has no permissions on the victim bucket:
- cannot
ListObjects,HeadObject,GetObject, orCopyObjectfrom the victim bucket.
- cannot
- Attacker has minimal permissions only on attacker bucket:
CreateMultipartUpload,UploadPart,UploadPartCopy,CompleteMultipartUpload,AbortMultipartUpload,- and
PutObject/GetObjectfor objects in attacker bucket.
- Despite this, attacker can exfiltrate victim objects via multipart copy.
Root Cause Analysis
The access control layer fails open for multipart copy-related operations:
File: rustfs/src/storage/access.rs
abort_multipart_upload()returnsOk(())without authorization (L435–437)complete_multipart_upload()returnsOk(())without authorization (L442–444)upload_part_copy()returnsOk(())without authorization (L1446–1448)
In contrast, copy_object() correctly enforces authorization:
- source
GetObjectauthorization (L469) - destination
PutObjectauthorization (L478)
The multipart copy implementation reads the source object directly:
File: rustfs/src/app/multipart_usecase.rs
store.get_object_reader(&src_bucket, &src_key, ...)(L959–962)
Because upload_part_copy() does not enforce source GetObject authorization, the server reads and copies victim data even when the requester lacks permission.
Affected Versions
- Tested vulnerable on:
main@c1d5106acc3480c275a52344df84633bb6dcd8f0 - Git describe:
1.0.0-alpha.86-3-gc1d5106a
The fail-open authorization behavior for UploadPartCopy was introduced in:
- Commit:
09ea11c13(pergit blameonrustfs/src/storage/access.rs:1443-1448)
Affected range (recommended wording):
- All versions from commit
09ea11c13throughc1d5106acc3480c275a52344df84633bb6dcd8f0(and likely any releases containing those commits) until a fix is applied.
Package version (Cargo metadata)
rustfscrate version in this tree: 0.0.5 (cargo metadata)
Proof of Concept (PoC) – Real Commands + Verified Results
Files
Place the PoC script at the repository root:
- PoC script:
poc_uploadpartcopy_exfil_v3.sh - Captured output:
poc_v3_output.txt - (Optional) Redacted debug log:
upload_part_copy_debug_redacted.log(Authorization/signature redacted)
Environment
RustFS running locally (Docker is simplest), listening on:
http://127.0.0.1:9000
Tools:
awscli,jq,awscurl
Steps to Reproduce
- Start RustFS (example):
docker compose -f docker-compose-simple.yml up -d
- Run the PoC and save output:
chmod +x poc_uploadpartcopy_exfil_v3.sh
./poc_uploadpartcopy_exfil_v3.sh | tee poc_v3_output.txt
Attachments
Expected Behavior
-
Attacker operations against victim bucket should be denied:
ListObjects-> AccessDeniedHeadObject-> AccessDeniedGetObject-> AccessDeniedCopyObject-> AccessDenied
-
UploadPartCopyfrom victim -> attacker multipart should also be denied.
Actual Behavior
- All direct operations against victim are denied (as expected),
- but
UploadPartCopysucceeds, and attacker retrieves the copied object from attacker bucket.
Observed PoC Output
Victim uploads a private object:
- size:
5,242,880bytes - sha256:
fda018db1da9d8f4c1b287c75943384a3b4ede391ec156039b6d94e17d6ad68f
Attacker exfiltrates it via multipart copy:
- stolen size:
5,242,880bytes - stolen sha256:
fda018db1da9d8f4c1b287c75943384a3b4ede391ec156039b6d94e17d6ad68f
Proof:
- hashes and sizes match (victim == stolen) -> unauthorized cross-bucket read confirmed.
Network Evidence (Redacted)
The debug log shows a successful request with:
- HTTP method:
PUT - destination:
/<attacker-bucket>/<dst-key>?partNumber=1&uploadId=... - header:
x-amz-copy-source: <victim-bucket>/private/finance_dump.bin - response:
HTTP/1.1 200with<CopyPartResult><ETag>...</ETag>...</CopyPartResult>
Fix
Implement authorization checks equivalent to copy_object() for multipart copy paths:
-
upload_part_copy:- enforce source
GetObjectauthorization onx-amz-copy-source - enforce destination
PutObjectauthorization on the target object - (recommended) apply the same tag-condition enforcement used by
copy_object()on the source.
- enforce source
-
complete_multipart_upload:- enforce destination
PutObjectauthorization
- enforce destination
-
abort_multipart_upload:- enforce appropriate multipart permission (or destination
PutObjectas a safe boundary)
- enforce appropriate multipart permission (or destination
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| rustfs | <= 0.0.2 |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w RustFS: ListServiceAccount authorizes against wrong admin action, enabling cross-user enumeration and root service account takeover | High | Also affects rustfs |
| GHSA-pfcq-4gjr-6gjm RustFS: Missing admin authorization on notification target endpoints allows unauthenticated configuration of event webhooks | High | Also affects rustfs |
| GHSA-v9fg-3cr2-277j Rust has Critical Stored XSS in Preview Modal, leading to Administrative Account Takeover | Medium | Also affects rustfs |
| GHSA-w5fh-f8xh-5x3p RustFS: Missing Post Policy Validation leads to Arbitrary Object Write | Critical | Also affects rustfs |
| GHSA-r54g-49rx-98cr RustFS Logs Sensitive Credentials in Plaintext | High | Also affects rustfs |
| GHSA-fc6g-2gcp-2qrq RustFS has SourceIp bypass via spoofed X-Forwarded-For/Real-IP headers | High | Also affects rustfs |
| GHSA-333v-68xh-8mmq RustFS's RPC signature verification logs shared secret | High | Also affects rustfs |
| GHSA-xgr5-qc6w-vcg9 RustFS has IAM deny_only Short-Circuit that Allows Privilege Escalation via Service Account Minting | Critical | Also affects rustfs |
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