Skip to content

RustFS: Missing admin authorization on notification target endpoints allows unauthenticated configuration of event webhooks

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 22, 2026 in rustfs/rustfs • Updated Apr 27, 2026

Package

rustfs (Rust)

Affected versions

<= 0.0.2

Patched versions

None

Description

Missing Admin Auth on Notification Target Endpoints in RustFS

Finding Summary

All four notification target admin API endpoints in rustfs/src/admin/handlers/event.rs use a check_permissions helper that validates authentication only (access key + session token), without performing any admin-action authorization via validate_admin_request. Every other admin handler in the codebase correctly calls validate_admin_request with a specific AdminAction. This is the only admin handler file that skips authorization.

A non-admin user can overwrite a shared admin-defined notification target by name, causing subsequent bucket events to be delivered to an attacker-controlled endpoint. This enables cross-user event interception and audit evasion.

What Was Proven Live

  1. Authorization bypass on all four endpoints (03_readonly_user_bypass.py)

    • PUT, GET list, GET arns, DELETE all return 200 for readonly-user
    • Control routes (list-users, kms/status) correctly return 403
    • Unauthenticated requests correctly rejected (403 Signature required)
  2. SSRF via health probe (04_ssrf_listener_landing.py)

    • HEAD request from rustfs container to attacker-controlled listener
    • No host validation: only scheme check (http/https)
  3. Target hijacking and event exfiltration (05_target_hijacking.py, 06_full_event_exfil.py)

    • Readonly-user overwrites admin-configured target URL by name
    • Subsequent S3 events delivered to attacker-controlled endpoint
    • Captured event body includes object keys, bucket names, user identities, and request metadata
  4. Audit evasion (05_target_hijacking.py)

    • Readonly-user can delete unbound targets
    • Readonly-user can overwrite bound targets (silently redirecting events)

Escalation Vectors Tested But Not Viable

  1. Self-referencing webhook to admin API (13_self_referencing_test.py)

    • Webhook sends unsigned POST with event JSON body
    • Admin endpoints require SigV4 auth -- unsigned request rejected
    • "Confused deputy" via self-referencing does NOT work
  2. Protocol smuggling via non-HTTP targets

    • Only 2 target types implemented: webhook and MQTT (event.rs:613 enforces this)
    • No Redis, Kafka, AMQP, or other protocol targets exist
    • CRLF injection in webhook config fields sanitized by reqwest
    • MQTT uses rumqttc (pure Rust binary protocol client), no raw TCP injection
  3. MQTT target for RCE

    • No unsafe code in MQTT handler
    • rumqttc 0.29.0 has no known public CVEs
    • No Command::new, template engines, or deserialization of broker responses
  4. Unauth access

    • Endpoints correctly reject unauthenticated requests (403)
    • Endpoints correctly reject invalid credentials (403)

Prior Art

No existing advisory covers notification target endpoints. 11 published GHSAs on rustfs/rustfs cover different handlers. Closest:

  • CVE-2026-22042 (ImportIam wrong action constant) -- same bug class, different file
  • CVE-2026-22043 (deny_only short-circuit) -- different bug class

Recommendation

Submit via GitHub PVR. The finding is well-supported with live PoC, code references, and clear root cause. The fix is straightforward (add validate_admin_request calls to event.rs handlers). Core submission should reference 2-3 focused PoC scripts (readonly bypass, target hijack, event exfil), not the full set of 13 exploratory scripts.

Koda Reef

Patch

This issue has been patched in version https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs/releases/tag/1.0.0-alpha.94.

References

@loverustfs loverustfs published to rustfs/rustfs Apr 22, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 22, 2026
Reviewed Apr 22, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Apr 22, 2026
Last updated Apr 27, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

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

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-40937

GHSA ID

GHSA-pfcq-4gjr-6gjm

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.