dbcve.org
Missing AuthenticationWeakness · CWE-306

CVE-2026-45044

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-05-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
97/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges 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
RustFS is a distributed object storage system built in Rust. Prior to 1.0.0-beta.2, the admin router explicitly whitelists /profile/cpu and /profile/memory from the authentication layer, allowing any unauthenticated HTTP client to invoke profiling handlers without credentials. On supported builds (e.g., glibc), the handler invokes a fixed 60-second CPU profiling operation (dump_cpu_pprof_for(Duration::from_secs(60))). This may result in significant CPU resource consumption per request and can potentially lead to denial of service when abused. Additionally, the handler returns the server’s absolute filesystem path in the response body, resulting in information disclosure. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.0-beta.2.

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 · high confidence

RustFS admin router whitelists /profile/cpu and /profile/memory endpoints from authentication, allowing any unauthenticated client to trigger a fixed 60-second CPU profiling operation that can cause significant resource consumption and DoS. The profiling handler also leaks the server's absolute filesystem path in the response.

MitigationUpgrade to RustFS version 1.0.0-beta.2 or later which includes authentication enforcement on profiling endpoints. Alternatively, immediately restrict network access to these endpoints via firewall or reverse proxy rules until the upgrade can be applied.

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
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 RustFS usage
    Search your codebase for 'rustfs' in Cargo.toml, Cargo.lock, or dependency declarations. Run 'cargo tree -p rustfs' if the project builds to confirm the package is included.
    Affected if RustFS is listed as a direct or transitive dependency
  2. Check RustFS version
    Run 'cargo list rustfs' or inspect the version field for rustfs in your Cargo.lock file. Compare the version against the affected range: prior to 1.0.0-beta.2.
    Affected if The installed version is below 1.0.0-beta.2 (e.g., 1.0.0-beta.1, 1.0.0-alpha, or any 0.x release)
  3. Verify admin router is enabled
    Search your configuration files or code for admin router settings. Look for flags such as 'admin', 'admin_router', 'enable_admin', or similar options that activate the admin interface.
    Affected if The admin router feature or configuration option is explicitly enabled in your deployment
  4. Confirm network exposure of admin interface
    Inspect your server startup configuration, firewall rules, or reverse proxy settings to determine if the admin router port (typically the port RustFS admin binds to) is reachable from untrusted networks or the public internet.
    Affected if The admin router port is bound to a non-loopback interface and is accessible from untrusted IP addresses

You are affected if you are using RustFS version below 1.0.0-beta.2 with the admin router enabled and exposed to untrusted network access, as this allows unauthenticated attackers to trigger the unprotected profiling endpoints.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to RustFS version 1.0.0-beta.2 or later which includes authentication enforcement on profiling endpoints. Alternatively, immediately restrict network access to these endpoints via firewall or reverse proxy rules until the upgrade can be applied.

Recommended fix High confidence

1.0.0-beta.2

  1. Upgrade RustFS from any version prior to 1.0.0-beta.2 to version 1.0.0-beta.2 or later
  2. If using a package manager or build system for Rust, update the Cargo.toml dependency to specify version 1.0.0-beta.2 or use a semver-compatible range like '>=1.0.0-beta.2'
  3. Run cargo build or cargo update to fetch and compile the fixed version
  4. Verify the upgrade by checking the installed RustFS version matches 1.0.0-beta.2 or newer
  5. Review server access logs for any suspicious requests to /profile/cpu or /profile/memory endpoints that may have occurred before patching

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
8.0 hours of engineering $1,420
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-45044 — 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-2026-45044 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