Skip to content

RustFS has IAM Incorrect Authorization in ImportIam that Allows Privilege Escalation

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jan 8, 2026 in rustfs/rustfs • Updated Jan 8, 2026

Package

cargo rustfs (Rust)

Affected versions

< 1.0.0-alpha.79

Patched versions

1.0.0-alpha.79

Description

Summary

The ImportIam admin API validates permissions using ExportIAMAction instead of ImportIAMAction, allowing a principal with export-only IAM permissions to perform import operations. Since importing IAM data performs privileged write actions (creating/updating users, groups, policies, and service accounts), this can lead to unauthorized IAM modification and privilege escalation.

Details

In ImportIam, the authorization check is implemented as follows:

validate_admin_request(
    &req.headers,
    &cred,
    owner,
    false,
    vec![Action::AdminAction(AdminAction::ExportIAMAction)],
).await?;

However, this code resides in the Import IAM operation (struct ImportIam {}), which performs state-changing IAM writes.

The expected behavior is to validate against AdminAction::ImportIAMAction (or an equivalent import-specific admin action), not ExportIAMAction.

PoC

Prerequisites

  1. A RustFS deployment with IAM enabled.
  2. An IAM user or role that has Export IAM permission but does not have Import IAM or full admin permissions.
  3. Access credentials for that user.

Steps

  1. Create or obtain an IAM principal with permission equivalent to:

    AdminAction::ExportIAMAction

    and without Import IAM privileges.

  2. Prepare a valid IAM import ZIP archive containing, for example:

    • A new policy granting administrative permissions
    • A user or service account bound to that policy

  3. Send a request to the Import IAM endpoint (the same endpoint handled by ImportIam::call), authenticating with the export-only credentials.

  4. Observe that:

    • The request passes authorization.
    • IAM entities from the archive are created or modified successfully.

Expected Result

  • The request should be rejected with an authorization error (e.g., AccessDenied).

Actual Result

  • The request succeeds, and IAM state is modified.

References

@loverustfs loverustfs published to rustfs/rustfs Jan 8, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jan 8, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jan 8, 2026
Reviewed Jan 8, 2026
Last updated Jan 8, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

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.
(9th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Authorization

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

CVE ID

CVE-2026-22042

GHSA ID

GHSA-vcwh-pff9-64cc

Source code

Credits

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