Skip to content

GHSA-xwwr-4h3p-r22c BIT-rclone-2026-88018 CVE-2026-88018 GO-2026-6462

rclone serve s3: --auth-proxy without --auth-key authenticates nobody - full SigV4 signature bypass

Critical Go
Severity
9.8 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.51%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 43.56% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-287 Improper Authentication
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
Fix
1.75.1
Upgrade github.com/rclone/rclone to this version or later

Description

Summary

rclone serve s3's handler chain, when --auth-proxy is configured, is (outermost first): authPairMiddleware -> proxyAuthMiddleware -> gofakes3's own SigV4-verifying handler.

authPairMiddleware parses the accessKeyID straight out of the incoming request's own Authorization header (entirely client-controlled) and registers {accessKey: ws.s3Secret} into gofakes3's shared credential store via AddAuthKeys, for EVERY access key any client presents - not just ones previously known to the server. ws.s3Secret defaults to "" whenever --auth-key is not set, which the --auth-proxy documentation (and the reference bin/test_proxy.py) presents as a complete, standalone authentication mechanism requiring no other flag - matching how it's used for serve webdav/ftp/sftp.

gofakes3's SigV4 verification then checks the request's signature against exactly the secret authPairMiddleware just registered for that same client-chosen key. An empty string is a valid HMAC key, so a caller can trivially compute a correct SigV4 signature for ANY access key ID of their choosing using an empty secret, and verification passes.

Crucially, the auth-proxy script never receives a real secret to verify against, for S3 specifically: Server.auth() calls w.proxy.Call(md5(accessKeyID), accessKeyID, false, r.RemoteAddr) - passing the access key ID itself as BOTH the hashed "user" and the raw "auth"/password fields. Contrast with serve webdav/ftp/sftp, whose proxy integration passes the client's actual typed password (see bin/test_proxy.py, which forwards it into a backing SFTP login for real verification). For S3, no independent secret is ever transmitted to the proxy script at all, so no script - however carefully written - can distinguish a legitimate holder of an access key ID from an attacker who merely picked the same string.

Net effect: with --auth-proxy configured and --auth-key not also set (the configuration the feature is documented to support standalone), SigV4 signature verification authenticates nobody.

Details

Vulnerable code (before fix):

func authPairMiddleware(next http.Handler, ws *Server) http.Handler {
	return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
		accessKey, _ := parseAccessKeyID(r)
		authPair := map[string]string{accessKey: ws.s3Secret}
		ws.faker.AddAuthKeys(authPair)
		next.ServeHTTP(w, r)
	})
}

PoC

Built and signed a request by hand (via the vendored github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/aws/signer/v4) using a freshly-random access key ID never configured or returned by anything, with SecretAccessKey: "", against a real rclone serve s3 --auth-proxy <script> instance with no --auth-key set:

status=200
<ListAllMyBucketsResult>...<Bucket><Name>mybucket</Name>...

A fully authenticated, successful bucket listing, with zero prior credential knowledge.

Impact

Any network-reachable, unauthenticated attacker who knows (or discovers) that a target is running rclone serve s3 --auth-proxy without --auth-key can choose an arbitrary access key ID, sign a request against an empty secret, and be treated as an authenticated user by the auth-proxy script - reaching whatever backend that script resolves the chosen identity to. No credentials, prior access, or user interaction of any kind are required.

Fix

Refuse to start rclone serve s3 when --auth-proxy is set without --auth-key, rather than silently falling back to a signature check that authenticates nobody:

if proxyOpt.AuthProxy != "" && len(opt.AuthKey) == 0 {
	return nil, errors.New("serve s3: --auth-proxy requires --auth-key to also be set (SigV4 has no other way to verify a signature for a dynamically-proxied identity)")
}

Note this is a minimal fix for the zero-knowledge bypass; once --auth-key is also set, every access key ID still shares that one static secret for signature-verification purposes (a caller who knows it can request any identity from the proxy script) - a narrower, pre-existing limitation flagged for awareness but not changed here, since a complete fix needs the auth-proxy wire protocol to carry a per-identity secret for S3 specifically (a larger design change).

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/rclone/rclone
< 1.75.1
1.75.1

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 → 1.75.1

go
go get github.com/rclone/rclone@v1.75.1 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

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-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

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-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
GHSA-486v-q2wf-fp2r
rclone: http backend forwards custom/auth headers to a different host on redirect
Medium Also affects github.com/rclone/rclone
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