CVE-2026-42882 — s3-proxy authentication bypass via path interpretation mismatch
oxyno-zeta/s3-proxy is an aws s3 proxy written in go. Prior to 5.0.0, s3-proxy contains an authentication bypass caused by inconsistent URL path interpretation between the authentication middleware and the bucket handler. The authentication middleware evaluates resource path patterns against the percent-encoded request URI (r.URL.RequestURI()), while the bucket handler constructs S3 object keys from the decoded path (r.URL.Path). This mismatch, combined with the glob library being invoked without a path separator (causing * to match across / boundaries), allows unauthenticated attackers to write to, read from, or delete objects in protected S3 namespaces. Exploitation is possible via three techniques: (1) using * patterns that match across path separators to reach protected routes via path traversal (e.g., /open/foo/drafts/../restricted/), (2) using percent-encoded slashes (%2F) to collapse multiple path segments into a single token at the auth layer while the decoded form resolves to a protected namespace at the storage layer, and (3) using dot-dot segments (../) under ** prefix patterns, where the raw path matches an open route while Go's URL parser resolves the traversal to a protected path before the bucket handler runs. An unauthenticated attacker with network access can perform unauthorized PUT, GET, or DELETE operations on objects in authentication-protected S3 namespaces. This vulnerability is fixed in 5.0.0.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
- Technical severity (critical)+10
- CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5
- Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Oxyno-zeta S3-proxy).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (file handling), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxyno-zeta | S3-proxy | version < 5.0.0 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.4 | CVSS 3.1 | Critical | 3.9 | 5.5 | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 9.4 | CVSS 3.1 | Critical | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.72%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Monitor file creation in web directories and paths with traversal sequences (../).
Analysis and videos
CVE-2026-42882: s3-proxy authentication bypass via path interpretation mismatch
CVE-2026-42882 affects oxyno-zeta/s3-proxy before 5.0.0. The authentication middleware and the bucket handler interpret the same request path differently, which can let unauthenticated network attackers reach protected S3 namespaces. The record describes a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.4 and a fix in 5.0.0; no confirmed exploitation appears in the sources consulted.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · oxyno-zeta/s3-proxy
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 9.4
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-42882 is "s3-proxy authentication bypass via path interpretation mismatch", rated Critical. It affects S3-proxy (Oxyno-zeta); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.4 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.72% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.