GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w `ListServiceAccount` (`GET /rustfs/admin/v3/list-service-accounts?user=<other>`) authorizes cross-user requests against `UpdateSe

Not scored Published

A low-privileged user can enumerate service accounts and overwrite root secrets due to incorrect authorization checks, leading to full administrative takeover.

Exploited in the wild
Not known
Login needed
Any signed-in user
Attackable
Over the internet
Victim action needed
Not needed
Fix
Available

What is GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w?

GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w is a missing authorization vulnerability in rustfs, published on 5 May 2026. Any signed-in user can exploit it over the network, with no action from the victim.

Official description

Summary

ListServiceAccount (GET /rustfs/admin/v3/list-service-accounts?user=&lt;other&gt;) authorizes cross-user requests against UpdateServiceAccountAdminAction instead of ListServiceAccountsAdminAction at rustfs/src/admin/handlers/service_account.rs:936. The handler accepts the wrong admin action and rejects the correct one:

  • A user granted only admin:UpdateServiceAccount enumerates every service account in the cluster, including the root user's (HTTP 200, full metadata).
  • A user granted only admin:ListServiceAccounts — the permission name every IAM document treats as "list service accounts" — receives HTTP 403 AccessDenied on the same request.

Because service account access keys act as the identifier a UpdateServiceAccount holder needs to rotate a secret, and the UpdateServiceAccount handler at rustfs/src/admin/handlers/service_account.rs:489 performs no ownership check on the target access key, leaking those access keys lets a delegated "service account updater" role overwrite root-sa-1's secret, authenticate as the root user's service account, and create a persistent backdoor admin with admin:* + s3:*. Proven live end-to-end against rustfs/rustfs:latest (1.0.0-alpha.91, revision d4ea14c2) — the same revision is byte-identical on current origin/main.

Vulnerability Details

  • Package: rustfs (binary crate rustfs)
  • Affected versions: From 0a2411f (the initial service_account.rs check-in on 2026-03-15) through current HEAD 90e584a. The vulnerable line has never been touched.
  • Fixed versions: None
  • Vulnerable file: rustfs/src/admin/handlers/service_account.rs
  • Vulnerable route: GET /rustfs/admin/v3/list-service-accounts?user=&lt;other_user&gt; (ListServiceAccount::call)
  • CWE: CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization), chained with CWE-620 (Unverified Password Change) to reach CWE-269 (Improper Privilege Management)
  • CVSS (demonstrated chain to full admin): CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H = 10.0 Critical. If scored as Scope:Unchanged the vector is CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H = 8.8 High. The list bug alone (no chain) is CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N = 6.5 Medium and is what a maintainer would rate it if the Update ownership gap is out of scope for this report.

Two Distinct Vulnerabilities

This report documents two bugs that chain to full RustFS administrative takeover. Each is independently fixable and independently a security issue:

Vulnerability A — Wrong action constant in ListServiceAccount (CWE-863) ListServiceAccount::call at line 936 checks UpdateServiceAccountAdminAction instead of ListServiceAccountsAdminAction. This is a copy-paste typo: the three sibling list handlers (lines 658, 799, 1095) all use the correct constant. The result is a permission inversion — the correct permission (admin:ListServiceAccounts) is rejected, and the wrong one (admin:UpdateServiceAccount) is accepted. Independently, this is a Medium-severity cross-user information disclosure.

Vulnerability B — Missing ownership check in UpdateServiceAccount (CWE-620) UpdateServiceAccount::call at lines 489-614 authorizes on possession of admin:UpdateServiceAccount but never verifies the target ?accessKey= belongs to the caller or the caller's parent. Lines 522-525 contain a commented-out get_service_account call that would have loaded the target for such a check. This means any holder of admin:UpdateServiceAccount can overwrite any service account's secret in the cluster, regardless of ownership.

Chain (A + B) — Full RustFS administrative takeover Vulnerability A leaks every service account's access key (including the root administrator's). Vulnerability B allows overwriting any SA's secret given its access key. Together: a user with a single permission (admin:UpdateServiceAccount) enumerates the root user's SA access key via the wrong-action list bug, overwrites its secret via the ownership-free update handler, authenticates as the root user's service account, and creates a persistent backdoor admin with full RustFS administrative control.

Authorization mismatch at a glance:

Exact policies attached to each test identity (retrieved from running server via GET /admin/v3/info-canned-policy):

    legit-list-pol      -&gt; {&#34;Action&#34;: [&#34;admin:ListServiceAccounts&#34;],  &#34;Resource&#34;: [&#34;arn:aws:s3:::*&#34;]}
    list-sa-probe-pol   -&gt; {&#34;Action&#34;: [&#34;admin:UpdateServiceAccount&#34;], &#34;Resource&#34;: [&#34;arn:aws:s3:::*&#34;]}
    list-sa-restricted  -&gt; {&#34;Action&#34;: [&#34;admin:UpdateServiceAccount&#34;], &#34;Resource&#34;: [&#34;arn:aws:s3:::probe-scope/*&#34;]}
    (zero-priv-user has no attached policy)
IdentityAttached policyGET /list-service-accounts?user=rustfsadminExpected
probe-userlist-sa-probe-pol (admin:UpdateServiceAccount)200 (full SA metadata)403
legit-list-userlegit-list-pol (admin:ListServiceAccounts)403 AccessDenied200
restricted-update-userlist-sa-restricted (admin:UpdateServiceAccount on probe-scope/*)200403
zero-priv-user(none)403403
(unauthenticated)n/a403 Signature required403

Why the correct permission gets 403

The handler at line 936 calls is_allowed with the action AdminAction::UpdateServiceAccountAdminAction. The IAM engine performs an exact string match between the action in the is_allowed call (admin:UpdateServiceAccount) and the action in the caller's attached policy:

  • legit-list-user has policy action admin:ListServiceAccounts. This does not match admin:UpdateServiceAccount. is_allowed returns false. The handler returns 403. The user who holds the correct permission for listing service accounts is denied.
  • probe-user has policy action admin:UpdateServiceAccount. This matches admin:UpdateServiceAccount. is_allowed returns true. The handler returns 200. The user who holds a different, unrelated permission is granted access to a list endpoint.
  • restricted-update-user has the same action string but resource-scoped to arn:aws:s3:::probe-scope/*. Admin-action statements skip resource matching (crates/policy/src/policy/statement.rs:132: &amp;&amp; !self.is_admin() &amp;&amp; !self.is_sts()), so the resource restriction is ignored and is_allowed still returns true.

There is no wildcard, superset, or inheritance relationship between these two action strings. They are separate enum variants (crates/policy/src/policy/action.rs:459-462) with distinct strum(serialize) values. The IAM engine is working correctly; the handler passes the wrong action to it.

Raw request/response for legit-list-user (the counterintuitive 403):

    GET /rustfs/admin/v3/list-service-accounts?user=rustfsadmin  HTTP/1.1
    Authorization: AWS4-HMAC-SHA256 Credential=legit-list-user/...

    HTTP/1.1 403
    &lt;?xml version=&#34;1.0&#34; encoding=&#34;UTF-8&#34;?&gt;&lt;Error&gt;&lt;Code&gt;AccessDenied&lt;/Code&gt;&lt;Message&gt;access denied&lt;/Message&gt;&lt;/Error&gt;

Why this is not "working as intended":

  • admin:UpdateServiceAccount and admin:ListServiceAccounts are distinct enum variants with distinct string representations. The codebase treats them as orthogonal permissions.
  • Three sibling list handlers in the same file (lines 658, 799, 1095) all check ListServiceAccountsAdminAction. Only line 936 deviates.
  • CVE-2026-22042 / GHSA-vcwh-pff9-64cc is the maintainers' own precedent: ImportIam checking ExportIAMAction was rated Medium and fixed. The same class of bug applies here.
  • A zero-privilege user (no admin policies at all) cannot exploit either vulnerability — both handlers correctly enforce their respective is_allowed checks. The bug is that the list handler enforces the wrong action constant, not that it skips enforcement entirely.

Root Cause — Vulnerability A (Wrong Action Constant)

ListServiceAccount::call is registered for `GET /rustfs/admin/v3/list-s

Which versions are affected by GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w?

2 open source packages ship an affected version, including rustfs.

PackageAffectedFixed in
rustfs crates.ioAll versions1.0.0-alpha.98
rustfs crates.ioAll versions1.0.0-alpha.98

How do I fix GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w?

Upgrade rustfs to 1.0.0-alpha.98 or later.

Upgrade, and check permissions on every request on the server, not only in the interface. More about Missing authorization.

Is GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w in the wild and no public exploit code.

Sources

Is GHSA-mm2q-qcmx-gw4w in your software?

Upload an SBOM and sbomify checks it against every vulnerability here, every day.

Check your SBOMs for free