dbcve.org
Race ConditionWeakness · CWE-362

CVE-2024-12747

MEDIUM · 5.6 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-01-14
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
58/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click

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 · unedited
A flaw was found in rsync. This vulnerability arises from a race condition during rsync's handling of symbolic links. Rsync's default behavior when encountering symbolic links is to skip them. If an attacker replaced a regular file with a symbolic link at the right time, it was possible to bypass the default behavior and traverse symbolic links. Depending on the privileges of the rsync process, an attacker could leak sensitive information, potentially leading to privilege escalation.

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 confidence

A race condition in rsync allows attackers to replace a regular file with a symbolic link at a precise moment during rsync execution, bypassing rsync's default behavior of skipping symlinks. This enables symlink traversal that can leak sensitive information or lead to privilege escalation depending on the rsync process privileges.

MitigationUpdate rsync to the patched version addressing the race condition. As a defensive measure, ensure source directories are not writable by untrusted users and consider using rsync's --no-relative option or explicit symlink handling flags to restrict symlink traversal.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
Local
Complexity
High
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify rsync version
    Run 'rsync --version' and note the version number in the output (e.g., rsync version X.Y.Z)
    Affected if The installed version is older than the patched version that addresses this race condition (compare your version to the fixed release)
  2. Determine source directory ownership
    Review the source directories that rsync is copying from and check file ownership and permissions using 'ls -la <source_directory>'
    Affected if Source directories are writable by untrusted or unprivileged users who could exploit the race condition during rsync execution
  3. Check rsync command options
    Review the rsync command line or script being used, looking for options like --no-relative, --no-links, --safe-links, or --copy-unsafe-links
    Affected if The rsync command lacks symlink restriction options (such as --no-relative or --safe-links) and copies from directories exposed to untrusted users
  4. Inspect process privileges
    Check if the rsync process runs with elevated privileges (root or specific service account) using 'ps aux | grep rsync' or by reviewing the service configuration
    Affected if Rsync runs with elevated privileges and pulls from directories writable by less-privileged users, enabling potential privilege escalation through symlink traversal
  5. Verify umask setting
    Check the umask applied to the rsync process via the environment or startup script, using 'grep -r umask /etc/rsync* /etc/default/rsync 2>/dev/null' or reviewing the service environment
    Affected if A permissive umask (such as 0000 or 0002) is set, which could aid in symlink-based attacks during the race window

You are affected if running an unpatched rsync version with source directories writable by untrusted users and without symlink restriction flags in the rsync command.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update rsync to the patched version addressing the race condition. As a defensive measure, ensure source directories are not writable by untrusted users and consider using rsync's --no-relative option or explicit symlink handling flags to restrict symlink traversal.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-12747 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-12747 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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