Skip to content

Distribution: stale blob access resurrection via repo-scoped redis descriptor cache invalidation

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 6, 2026 in distribution/distribution • Updated Apr 6, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/distribution/distribution (Go)

Affected versions

<= 2.8.3

Patched versions

None
gomod github.com/distribution/distribution/v3 (Go)
< 3.1.0
3.1.0

Description

summary:

distribution can restore read access in repo a after an explicit delete when storage.cache.blobdescriptor: redis and storage.delete.enabled: true are both enabled. the delete path clears the shared digest descriptor but leaves stale repo-scoped membership behind, so a later Stat or Get from repo b repopulates the shared descriptor and makes the deleted blob readable from repo a again.

Severity

HIGH

justification: this is a repo-local authorization bypass after explicit delete, with concrete confidentiality impact and no requirement for write access after the delete event. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N (7.5). CWE-284.

affected version

details

the backend access model is repository-link based: once repo a deletes its blob link, later reads from repo a should continue returning ErrBlobUnknown even if the same digest remains linked in repo b.

the issue is the split invalidation path in the redis cache backend:

  1. linkedBlobStore.Delete calls blobAccessController.Clear during repository delete handling.
  2. cachedBlobStatter.Clear forwards that invalidation into the cache layer.
  3. repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Clear checks that the digest is a member of repo a, but then only calls upstream.Clear.
  4. upstream.Clear deletes the shared digest descriptor and does not remove the digest from the repository membership set for repo a.
  5. when repo b later stats or gets the same digest, the shared descriptor is recreated.
  6. repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Stat for repo a accepts the stale membership and now trusts the repopulated shared descriptor, restoring access in the repository that already deleted its link.

this creates a revocation gap at the repository boundary. the blob is briefly inaccessible from repo a right after delete, which confirms the backend link was removed, and then becomes accessible again only because stale redis membership survived while a peer repository repopulated the shared descriptor.

attack scenario

  1. an operator runs distribution with storage.cache.blobdescriptor: redis and storage.delete.enabled: true.
  2. the same digest exists in both repo a and repo b.
  3. the operator deletes the blob from repo a and expects repository-local access to be revoked.
  4. repo a correctly returns blob unknown immediately after the delete.
  5. an anonymous or unprivileged user requests the same digest from repo b, which still legitimately owns it and repopulates the shared descriptor.
  6. a later request for the digest from repo a succeeds again because stale repo-a membership was never revoked from redis.

PoC

attachment: poc.zip

the attached PoC is a deterministic integration harness using miniredis and the pinned distribution source tree.

steps to reproduce

canonical:

unzip -q -o poc.zip -d poc
cd poc
make canonical

expected output:

[CALLSITE_HIT]: repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Clear->upstream.Clear->repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Stat
[PROOF_MARKER]: repo_a_access_restored=true repo_a_delete_miss=true repo_b_peer_warm=true
[IMPACT_MARKER]: repo_a_post_delete_read=true confidentiality_boundary_broken=true

control:

unzip -q -o poc.zip -d poc
cd poc
make control

expected control output:

[CALLSITE_HIT]: repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Clear->repositoryScopedRedisBlobDescriptorService.Stat
[NC_MARKER]: repo_a_access_restored=false repo_b_peer_warm=true

expected vs actual

  • expected: after repo a deletes its blob link, later reads from repo a should keep returning blob unknown even if repo b still references the same digest and warms cache state.
  • actual: repo a first returns blob unknown, then repo b repopulates the shared descriptor, and repo a serves the deleted digest again through stale repo-scoped redis membership.

impact

the confirmed impact is repository-local confidentiality failure after explicit delete. an operator can remove sensitive content from repo a, observe revocation working immediately after the delete, and still have the same content become readable from repo a again as soon as repo b refreshes the shared descriptor for that digest.

this is not a claim about global blob deletion. the bounded claim is that repository-local revocation fails, which breaks the expectation that deleting a blob link from one repository prevents further reads from that repository.

remediation

the safest fix is to make redis invalidation revoke repo-scoped state together with the backend link deletion. in practice that means removing the digest from the repository membership set, deleting the repo-scoped descriptor hash, and keeping that cleanup atomic enough that peer-repository warming cannot restore access in the repository that already deleted its link.

poc.zip
PR_DESCRIPTION.md
attack_scenario.md

References

@milosgajdos milosgajdos published to distribution/distribution Apr 6, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 6, 2026
Reviewed Apr 6, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Apr 6, 2026
Last updated Apr 6, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(37th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-35172

GHSA ID

GHSA-f2g3-hh2r-cwgc

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.