Know every vulnerabilitybefore it knows you.
DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.
GHSA-f2g3-hh2r-cwgc
No affected components available
summary:
distribution can restore read access in repo a after an explicit delete when storage.cache.blobdescriptor: redis and storage.delete.enabled: true are both enabled. the delete path clears the shared digest descriptor but leaves stale repo-scoped membership behind, so a later Stat or Get from repo b repopulates the shared descriptor and makes the deleted blob readable from repo a again.
Severity
HIGH
justification: this is a repo-local authorization bypass after explicit delete, with concrete confidentiality impact and no requirement for write access after the delete event. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N (7.5). CWE-284.
affected version
- repository: https://github.com/distribution/distribution
- commit: ab67ffa0bda3712991194841d0fde727464feeb9
- affected versions: <= 3.0.x, <= 2.8.x when redis blob descriptor cache and delete are both enabled
- affected file:
- https://github.com/distribution/distribution/blob/ab67ffa0bda3712991194841d0fde727464feeb9/registry/storage/cache/redis/redis.go#L212-L226
- related callsites:
- https://github.com/distribution/distribution/blob/ab67ffa0bda3712991194841d0fde727464feeb9/registry/storage/cache/cachedblobdescriptorstore.go#L66-L76
- https://github.com/distribution/distribution/blob/ab67ffa0bda3712991194841d0fde727464feeb9/registry/storage/linkedblobstore.go#L218-L224
- https://github.com/distribution/distribution/blob/ab67ffa0bda3712991194841d0fde727464feeb9/registry/storage/linkedblobstore.go#L396-L403
details
the backend access model is repository-link based: once repo a deletes its blob link, later reads from repo a should continue returning ErrBlobUnknown even if the same digest remains linked in repo b.
the issue is the split invalidation path in the redis cache backend:
linkedBlobStore.DeletecallsblobAccessController.Clearduring repository delete handling.cachedBlobStatter.Clearforwards that invalidation into the cache layer.repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Clearchecks that the digest is a member ofrepo a, but then only callsupstream.Clear.upstream.Cleardeletes the shared digest descriptor and does not remove the digest from the repository membership set forrepo a.- when
repo blater stats or gets the same digest, the shared descriptor is recreated. repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Statforrepo aaccepts the stale membership and now trusts the repopulated shared descriptor, restoring access in the repository that already deleted its link.
this creates a revocation gap at the repository boundary. the blob is briefly inaccessible from repo a right after delete, which confirms the backend link was removed, and then becomes accessible again only because stale redis membership survived while a peer repository repopulated the shared descriptor.
attack scenario
- an operator runs distribution with
storage.cache.blobdescriptor: redisandstorage.delete.enabled: true. - the same digest exists in both
repo aandrepo b. - the operator deletes the blob from
repo aand expects repository-local access to be revoked. repo acorrectly returnsblob unknownimmediately after the delete.- an anonymous or unprivileged user requests the same digest from
repo b, which still legitimately owns it and repopulates the shared descriptor. - a later request for the digest from
repo asucceeds again because stale repo-a membership was never revoked from redis.
PoC
attachment: poc.zip
the attached PoC is a deterministic integration harness using miniredis and the pinned distribution source tree.
steps to reproduce
canonical:
unzip -q -o poc.zip -d poc
cd poc
make canonical
expected output:
[CALLSITE_HIT]: repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Clear->upstream.Clear->repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Stat
[PROOF_MARKER]: repo_a_access_restored=true repo_a_delete_miss=true repo_b_peer_warm=true
[IMPACT_MARKER]: repo_a_post_delete_read=true confidentiality_boundary_broken=true
control:
unzip -q -o poc.zip -d poc
cd poc
make control
expected control output:
[CALLSITE_HIT]: repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Clear->repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Stat
[NC_MARKER]: repo_a_access_restored=false repo_b_peer_warm=true
expected vs actual
- expected: after
repo adeletes its blob link, later reads fromrepo ashould keep returningblob unknowneven ifrepo bstill references the same digest and warms cache state. - actual:
repo afirst returnsblob unknown, thenrepo brepopulates the shared descriptor, andrepo aserves the deleted digest again through stale repo-scoped redis membership.
impact
the confirmed impact is repository-local confidentiality failure after explicit delete. an operator can remove sensitive content from repo a, observe revocation working immediately after the delete, and still have the same content become readable from repo a again as soon as repo b refreshes the shared descriptor for that digest.
this is not a claim about global blob deletion. the bounded claim is that repository-local revocation fails, which breaks the expectation that deleting a blob link from one repository prevents further reads from that repository.
remediation
the safest fix is to make redis invalidation revoke repo-scoped state together with the backend link deletion. in practice that means removing the digest from the repository membership set, deleting the repo-scoped descriptor hash, and keeping that cleanup atomic enough that peer-repository warming cannot restore access in the repository that already deleted its link.
The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker does not need any special privileges or access rights. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a high impact on the confidentiality of the information.
Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard