Skip to main content
← Vulnerabilities

`ocipkg`: unpacking an OCI archive can write and delete files outside the local image store (path traversal)

Exploited
No known exploitation
Fix
Fixed in 0.4.1
Who is exposed
Not reported

Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.4.1.

Published
Last modified
10/100 · provisional
None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub

Summary

The `ocipkg` tool can write and delete files outside its local image store when it unpacks a crafted OCI archive whose index.json names an image with path traversal components such as `..`. The description also notes the flaw could be escalated to code execution.

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

Read the original description

When ocipkg unpacks an OCI archive, the destination directory is derived from the image name, which ocipkg reads from the archive's own index.json (org.opencontainers.image.ref.name). That name is attacker-controlled, and ImageName::parse accepts a hostname of .., so the computed destination escapes the local image store. A "zip-slip"-style path traversal (CWE-22 / CWE-23). This is esclatable to code execution.

In Artifact::unpack (src/image/artifact.rs), the destination is image_dir(name) = data_dir().join(name.as_path()) (src/local/mod.rs:31), where the name comes from get_name_from_index (src/image/layout.rs:114-124):

let image_name = self.base.get_name()?;   // from the archive's index.json ref.name
let dest = image_dir(&image_name)?;        // data_dir().join(name.as_path()); hostname ".." escapes
if dest.exists() {
    if overwrite {
        fs::remove_dir_all(&dest)?;        // deletes a directory OUTSIDE the store
    }
}
fs::create_dir_all(&dest)?;
// ... each tar layer is then unpacked under `dest` (also outside the store)

The fix

Fixed in ocipkg 0.4.1 by PR #223. The leading reference component is validated against the org.opencontainers.image.ref.name grammar from OCI Image Specification 1.1.1 on parse and deserialization, and local::image_dir revalidates the name and rejects any non-normal path component (e.g. ..) before any filesystem mutation, so a crafted archive can no longer escape the local image store.

cve.now Index

10Pcve.now Index 10 of 100 · methodology v3 · provisional
  • Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
  • Exposure?/25Unknown. No advisory context yet
  • Reach10/20Affects crates.io packages
  • Severity?/10Unknown. No CVSS score or vendor rating
  • No patch0/5No signal

What would change the score

  • Would score about 65 if added to CISA KEV
  • Would score about 60 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
  • Would score about 32 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed

What to do

  • Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.4.1.

Timeline

  1. Advisory published7 days
  2. Record last updated

Affected versions

  • ocipkgcrates.io

    From 0.0.0-0 · fixed in 0.4.1

Evidence 4

  1. Advisory
  2. Report
  3. Repository
  4. Link

Corrections

None so far.

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

Questions about RUSTSEC-2026-0450

Is RUSTSEC-2026-0450 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 RUSTSEC-2026-0450?

ocipkg (crates.io): from 0.0.0-0 before 0.4.1.Source: cve.now feed data

How do I fix RUSTSEC-2026-0450?

Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.4.1.Source: cve.now feed data