HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 58273 rucio has an authorization bypass on rest api
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High · CVSS 8.8CVE-2026-58273GHSA-5J9R-FX4X-RPVG

rucio has an Authorization Bypass on REST API endpoint for signing URLsCVE-2026-58273

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-58273 records a High severity (CVSS 8.8) vulnerability in rucio has an Authorization Bypass on REST API endpoint for signing URLs. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps rucio (pip), rucio (pip), rucio (pip), rucio (pypi) and additional mapped packages. Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Oct 28, 2026Updated Oct 28, 2026Source checked Oct 28, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 28, 2026Material review Oct 28, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 8.8
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
6 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 8.8. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps rucio (pip), rucio (pip), rucio (pip), rucio (pypi) and additional mapped packages. Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
ruciopip>=1.16.1,<35.9.035.9.0
ruciopip>=36.0.0rc1,<38.6.038.6.0
ruciopip>=39.0.0rc1,<41.0.0rc141.0.0rc1
ruciopypi>=1.16.1 <35.9.035.9.0
ruciopypi>=36.0.0rc1 <38.6.038.6.0
ruciopypi>=39.0.0rc1 <41.0.0rc141.0.0rc1

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for rucio, rucio, rucio.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update rucio to 35.9.0; rucio to 38.6.0; rucio to 41.0.0rc1; rucio to 35.9.0; rucio to 38.6.0; rucio to 41.0.0rc1 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Oct 28, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 28, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Oct 28, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

## Summary The `/credentials/signurl` endpoint decides authorization from the client-supplied `X-Rucio-Account` HTTP header instead of the authenticated token's account. Any client holding **any** valid auth token (even a low-privilege account they legitimately own) can send `X-Rucio-Account: root` to pass the root-only permission check and have the Rucio server mint a presigned **read / write / delete** URL for an **arbitrary** object, signed with the RSE's stored S3 / GCS / Swift credentials. ## Details `SignURL.get()` takes the authorization principal from a request header and never uses the token-authenticated identity: ```python # lib/rucio/web/rest/flaskapi/v1/credentials.py account = request.headers.get('X-Rucio-Account', default=None) # L165 (attacker-controlled) ... result = get_signed_url(account, rse=rse, service=service, # L194 operation=operation, url=url, lifetime=lifetime, vo=vo) ``` The gateway then uses that header value as the `issuer` for the permission check: ```python # lib/rucio/gateway/credential.py auth_result = permission.has_permission(issuer=account, vo=vo, # L57 action='get_signed_url', kwargs=kwargs, ...) ``` and the permission function is root-only: ```python # lib/rucio/core/permission/generic.py def perm_get_signed_url(issuer, kwargs, session): return _is_root(issuer) # _is_root(x) -> x.external == 'root' ``` `InternalAccount('root', vo).external == 'root'` unconditionally, so the gate passes whenever the header is `root`. The endpoint is on `AuthenticatedBlueprint`, whose `before_request` hook validates the token and sets `request.environ['issuer']` **from the token** — but nothing ever compares `X-Rucio-Account` to it: ```python # lib/rucio/web/rest/flaskapi/v1/common.py (request_auth_env) flask.request.environ['issuer'] = auth.get('account') # L168 (the real account; unused by SignURL) ``` This is anomalous: every other authenticated handler derives the account from `request.environ['issuer']`; `credentials.py` is the only one that trusts the header. Additionally, `core.credential.get_signed_url` never checks that the supplied `url`'s host/bucket belongs to the target RSE, so even a legitimate `root` caller gets an arbitrary-object signing oracle. In multi-VO the VO is also read from the `X-Rucio-VO` header, allowing cross-tenant targeting. ## Proof of concept Request (any valid token + spoofed account): ``` GET /credentials/signurl?rse=<cloudRSE>&svc=s3&op=delete&url=https://victim-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/important/dataset.root HTTP/1.1 X-Rucio-Auth-Token: <any valid token, even a low-privilege account> X-Rucio-Account: root Accept: application/octet-stream ``` Response: `200 OK` with a presigned DELETE URL the attacker replays directly against the storage backend. ## Impact A low-privilege Rucio user can read, overwrite, and delete arbitrary objects on any cloud-backed (S3/GCS/Swift) RSE using the server's stored credentials — enabling data exfiltration, tampering, and destruction, and cross-tenant access in multi-VO deployments. ## Credit Reported by seankohjs. Found via static analysis + manual verification.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • Ai-gateway-payload-processing: ai-gateway-payload-processing: tenant/credential selection from client-controlled url path with no in-process authorizationAlso CWE-639
  • LangGraph JavaScript custom authentication may permit cross-user Store accessAlso CWE-639
  • filelock: StrictSoftFileLock creates its claim directories without the lock mode, so another local user with a write bit on them can end a live holdSame pip ecosystem
  • filelock: WindowsFileLock ignores mode: a 0o600 lock file and the ReadWriteLock database inherit the directory ACLSame pip ecosystem
  • filelock: StrictSoftFileLock follows a symbolic link swapped in at <path>.filelock and creates claim files in a directory another local user choosesSame pip ecosystem
  • LangGraph: Unencoded identifiers in LangGraph SDK v3 streaming can redirect authenticated GET requestsSame pip ecosystem

Record context

Vulnerability class
Secret Exfiltration
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-639
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 28, 2026
References
9 linked sources
Open source record