CVE-2026-58273rucio insecure direct object reference
CVE-2026-58273 is a insecure direct object reference in rucio, rated high (8.1 on CVSS 3.1).
Why this priority: High severity, with no exploitation signal yet.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Received
What it is
Changing an identifier in a request reaches another user's records.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it over the network, with an ordinary user account, and nobody has to click anything.
What an attacker gains
A successful attack can read the data it protects and change data or behaviour. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker reach data or actions their role should not allow.
Is it being exploited?
CISA's SSVC assessment notes a public proof of concept.
What to do
- Upgrade rucio to a fixed version for your release line (35.9.0, 38.6.0, 41.0.0rc1).
- Until it is patched, review who holds accounts that can reach it.
Description from NVD
Rucio is a scientific data management framework. From 1.16.1 until 35.9.0, 38.6.0, and 41.0.0rc1, the /credentials/signurl endpoint reads X-Rucio-Account instead of the account stored in request.environ['issuer'] by token authentication. Any authenticated low-privilege user can supply root as the header value and pass the root-only get_signed_url permission check. The server then returns a presigned read, write, or delete URL for an attacker-selected object using stored S3, GCS, or Swift credentials, and X-Rucio-VO can select another tenant in multi-VO deployments. This permits data disclosure, modification, deletion, and cross-tenant access on cloud-backed RSEs. This issue is fixed in versions 35.9.0, 38.6.0, and 41.0.0rc1.
What this means for your architecture.
A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.
Components it touches
- Permission checks in APIs and admin surfaces. The flaw sits between one role or tenant and another.
- Multi-tenant services. The flaw sits between one role or tenant and another.
Trust boundaries in play
- Authenticated network access. An account is needed, so exposure follows who can sign in: customers, partners or staff.
- Between one role or tenant and another. An attacker who crosses it can reach data or actions their role should not allow.
Questions to answer about your own systems
- Where does rucio run in your systems, and at which version?
- Which of those instances can be reached from the internet or partner networks?
- What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?
Read more
Patches and commits
Sources
- CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
- Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
- Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.