CVE-2023-46741VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-46741: cubefs · Information Exposure

Affects cubefsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium : upgrade to 3.3.1 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.3.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade cubefs/cubefs to 3.3.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubcubefs/cubefs`pkg:github/cubefs/cubefs`Other threats	Affected <3.3.1	Fixed in 3.3.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

The primary and only effective mitigation is to upgrade CubeFS installations to version 3.3.1 or later, where the vulnerability has been patched. Organizations should prioritize this upgrade in their patch management cycles. Additionally, to reduce risk before patching, organizations should restrict access to logs containing sensitive information strictly to trusted administrators and implement robust access controls and monitoring to detect unauthorized log access attempts. Employing log management solutions that encrypt or redact sensitive configuration keys can also help mitigate exposure. Regular audits of user privileges and monitoring for unusual blob storage operations can provide early detection of exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should review their incident response plans to include scenarios involving insider threats or privilege escalation via leaked credentials.

Description

CubeFS is an open-source cloud-native file storage system. A vulnerability was found in CubeFS prior to version 3.3.1 that could allow users to read sensitive data from the logs which could allow them escalate privileges. CubeFS leaks configuration keys in plaintext format in the logs. These keys could allow anyone to carry out operations on blobs that they otherwise do not have permissions for. For example, an attacker that has succesfully retrieved a secret key from the logs can delete blogs from the blob store. The attacker can either be an internal user with limited privileges to read the log, or they can be an external user who has escalated privileges sufficiently to access the logs. The vulnerability has been patched in v3.3.1. There is no other mitigation than upgrading.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing CubeFS for cloud-native file storage, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized data manipulation and potential data loss. Exposure of configuration keys can enable attackers to delete or alter blob storage data, undermining data integrity and availability. This is particularly critical for sectors handling sensitive or regulated data, such as finance, healthcare, and government institutions, where data loss or unauthorized access can lead to compliance violations (e.g., GDPR), financial penalties, and reputational damage. The vulnerability's exploitation requires local or escalated access, so insider threats or attackers who have breached perimeter defenses could leverage this flaw to deepen their access and cause significant operational disruption. Given the increasing adoption of cloud-native storage solutions in Europe, organizations relying on CubeFS must consider the risk of privilege escalation and data tampering stemming from this vulnerability.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 03:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats