Skip to content

GHSA-mx42-j6wv-px98 CVE-2026-39360

RustFS has an authorization bypass in multipart UploadPartCopy enables cross-bucket object exfiltration

Medium crates.io
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, or CopyObject from the victim bucket.
  • Attacker has minimal permissions only on attacker bucket:
    • CreateMultipartUpload, UploadPart, UploadPartCopy, CompleteMultipartUpload, AbortMultipartUpload,
    • and PutObject/GetObject for 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() returns Ok(()) without authorization (L435–437)
  • complete_multipart_upload() returns Ok(()) without authorization (L442–444)
  • upload_part_copy() returns Ok(()) without authorization (L1446–1448)

In contrast, copy_object() correctly enforces authorization:

  • source GetObject authorization (L469)
  • destination PutObject authorization (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 (per git blame on rustfs/src/storage/access.rs:1443-1448)

Affected range (recommended wording):

  • All versions from commit 09ea11c13 through c1d5106acc3480c275a52344df84633bb6dcd8f0 (and likely any releases containing those commits) until a fix is applied.

Package version (Cargo metadata)

  • rustfs crate 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:

Environment

RustFS running locally (Docker is simplest), listening on:

  • http://127.0.0.1:9000

Tools:

  • awscli, jq, awscurl

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Start RustFS (example):
docker compose -f docker-compose-simple.yml up -d
  1. 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 -> AccessDenied
    • HeadObject -> AccessDenied
    • GetObject -> AccessDenied
    • CopyObject -> AccessDenied
  • UploadPartCopy from victim -> attacker multipart should also be denied.

Actual Behavior

  • All direct operations against victim are denied (as expected),
  • but UploadPartCopy succeeds, and attacker retrieves the copied object from attacker bucket.

Observed PoC Output

Victim uploads a private object:

  • size: 5,242,880 bytes
  • sha256: fda018db1da9d8f4c1b287c75943384a3b4ede391ec156039b6d94e17d6ad68f

Attacker exfiltrates it via multipart copy:

  • stolen size: 5,242,880 bytes
  • 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/1.1 200 with <CopyPartResult><ETag>...</ETag>...</CopyPartResult>

Fix

Implement authorization checks equivalent to copy_object() for multipart copy paths:

  • upload_part_copy:

    • enforce source GetObject authorization on x-amz-copy-source
    • enforce destination PutObject authorization on the target object
    • (recommended) apply the same tag-condition enforcement used by copy_object() on the source.
  • complete_multipart_upload:

    • enforce destination PutObject authorization
  • abort_multipart_upload:

    • enforce appropriate multipart permission (or destination PutObject as a safe boundary)

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed 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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
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