GHSA-66hp-wgxq-6f5q: Path Traversal

Published Sep 10, 2026
·
Updated

Summary backend/archive mounts a zip file as a browsable, syncable rclone Fs (e.g. rclone lsf :zip:downloaded.zip or rclone copy :zip:downloaded.zip dest:). Go's archive/zip package does not sanitize file.Name - it is taken verbatim from the untrusted zip's central directory. readZip() in backend/archive/zip/zip.go applies path.Clean to the entry name, but this alone cannot fully neutralize a name with more .. components than real segments preceding them (e.g. "../../etc/cron.d/evil" stays exactly as-is after cleaning). When the archive is mounted with an empty root (the common case), there was no check at all that the resulting name stayed inside the archive's own namespace, so it was stored verbatim and returned unchanged by Object.Remote().

fs/sync/fs/operations use srcObj.Remote() directly as the destination-relative path when copying between filesystems, so a maliciously crafted zip file can cause rclone copy/sync to attempt writes outside the intended destination directory on whatever backend it targets - this is the well-known "Zip Slip" vulnerability class (https://security.snyk.io/research/zip-slip-vulnerability) applied to rclone's own zip-mounting backend. It is distinct from cmd/archive/extract, which already validates via its own destPath() choke point and is not affected.

Details Vulnerable code (before fix), backend/archive/zip/zip.go, (Fs).readZip: go for , file := range zr.File { remote := strings.Trim(path.Clean(file.Name), "/") if remote == "." { remote = "" } remote = path.Join(f.prefix, remote) if f.root != "" { // Ignore all files outside the root if !strings.HasPrefix(remote, f.root) { continue } ... } ... o := &Object{f: f, remote: remote, ...} dt.Add(o) } The escape check only ran when f.root != "", and even then used a bare strings.HasPrefix with no boundary check (so f.root="foo" incorrectly also matched a sibling entry "foobar").

PoC Built a zip in memory with Go's real archive/zip writer (entry name "../../etc/cron.d/evil", not sanitized by the writer either), wrote it to disk, and mounted it via the actual production constructor zip.New(ctx, localFs, "evil.zip", "", ""): zip entry Name="../../etc/cron.d/evil" -> Object.Remote()="../../etc/cron.d/evil" Fully outside the archive's own namespace - confirmed via a regression test that mounts the malicious zip through the real local backend and inspects the resulting Fs's internal dirtree and every Object's Remote().

Impact A user who runs rclone copy/sync/mount against an untrusted zip file (downloaded, e-mailed, etc.) can have files written outside the intended destination directory on the destination backend, depending on that backend's own confinement. No server compromise or custom remote configuration is required from the attacker - only a crafted zip file and a normal rclone copy/sync invocation by the victim.

Fix Skip any zip entry whose cleaned+prefixed name still escapes the archive's own namespace, rather than exposing it. Also tightened the pre-existing root filter's weak prefix check.

Affected Software

1 affected componentFixes available
go/github.com/rclone/rclone>=1.72.0<1.75.1
1.75.1

Remediation

Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.

  1. Upgrade

    Upgrade go/github.com/rclone/rclone to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 1.75.1

Event History

Sep 10, 2026
Advisory Published
via GitHub·11:03 PM
Data Sourced
via GitHub·11:03 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeaknessAffected Software

Frequently Asked Questions

1

Who is exposed to this issue?

Users who copy or sync content from an untrusted ZIP archive through rclone's archive ZIP backend are exposed. The destination can be any backend targeted by the rclone copy or sync operation.

2

What does an attacker need to exploit it?

An attacker needs to provide a crafted ZIP file whose central-directory entry names contain traversal components such as ../../. A user must then use rclone copy or sync with that archive as the source.

3

Are common archive-backend configurations affected?

Yes. An archive mounted with an empty root, described as the common case, did not check that cleaned entry names remained inside the archive namespace. Such names could be returned as destination-relative paths and lead to write attempts outside the intended destination directory.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203