CVE-2018-12907
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn Rclone 1.42, use of "rclone sync" to migrate data between two Google Cloud Storage buckets might allow attackers to trigger the transmission of any URL's content to Google, because there is no validation of a URL field received from the Google Cloud Storage API server, aka a "RESTLESS" issue.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceIn Rclone 1.42, the rclone sync command between Google Cloud Storage buckets does not validate URL fields returned by the GCS API server. An attacker who can manipulate the GCS API response could redirect data transmission to an arbitrary URL, leading to unauthorized data exfiltration. This is a classic SSRF-like vulnerability where the client blindly trusts server-provided URLs.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 1.42CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed Rclone versionRun 'rclone version' or 'rclone --version' to retrieve the version numberAffected if The version displayed is exactly 1.42 (the specific affected version)
-
Verify sync operation involves Google Cloud StorageReview the rclone sync command syntax used; confirm the source and/or destination use the 'gcs:' prefix (e.g., rclone sync gcs:bucket1 gcs:bucket2)Affected if The sync command includes gcs: as either source or destination with rclone version 1.42
-
Inspect for unexpected outbound network connectionsUse network monitoring tools (netstat, Wireshark, or process network capture) to observe outbound connections from rclone during sync operationsAffected if Connections are made to URLs or IP addresses that do not belong to the expected Google Cloud Storage infrastructure
-
Review GCS bucket configuration for potential manipulationExamine the GCS bucket metadata and any custom metadata fields that could contain URL values; verify the bucket is from a trusted sourceAffected if The bucket contains untrusted or unexpected metadata with URL fields that rclone 1.42 would process without validation
A user is affected if they are running rclone version 1.42 and performing sync operations between Google Cloud Storage buckets, particularly with untrusted bucket sources.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to a patched version of Rclone that validates URL fields received from the GCS API. If immediate patching is not possible, avoid syncing from untrusted GCS bucket sources and monitor for anomalous outbound connections.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-12907 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2018-12907 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data