CVE-2026-59092: JuiceFS Authentication Bypass Exposes Database Credentials
JuiceFS versions up to 1.3.1 contain a critical flaw that leaves debug and metrics endpoints exposed without authentication. An attacker can access these endpoints to retrieve sensitive information—including database credentials embedded in process command lines—that grants them full control over the filesystem's metadata layer. This vulnerability also enables information disclosure about internal system state and can be exploited to disrupt service availability.
Source data · NVD / CISA · public domain
- CVSS
- 3.1 · 7.7 HIGH · CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
- Weaknesses (CWE)
- CWE-489
- Affected products
- 0 configuration(s)
- Published / Modified
- 2026-07-02 / 2026-07-14
NVD description (verbatim)
JuiceFS through 1.3.1, fixed in commit a46979c, contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to access sensitive debug and metrics endpoints by exploiting improper handler registration on the shared http.DefaultServeMux. Attackers can request the /debug/pprof/cmdline endpoint to obtain the process command line containing metadata engine connection strings with database credentials, granting full read/write access to filesystem metadata, while other pprof handlers leak internal state and profiling handlers enable denial of service.
4 reference(s) · View on NVD →
SEC.co analysis · AI-assisted, reviewed against source
Technical summary
The vulnerability stems from improper handler registration on Go's shared http.DefaultServeMux, allowing unauthenticated access to pprof diagnostic endpoints. The /debug/pprof/cmdline endpoint exposes the process command line, which typically includes metadata engine connection strings and database credentials. Additional pprof handlers leak internal runtime state, and profiling endpoints can be abused to trigger denial of service. The flaw affects JuiceFS through version 1.3.1 and was remediated in commit a46979c.
Business impact
Unauthorized metadata engine access can lead to wholesale modification or deletion of filesystem metadata, effectively corrupting the filesystem structure accessible to legitimate users. Credential exposure puts the underlying database at direct risk. The combination of metadata tampering and DoS capability creates significant business continuity risk, particularly for deployments where JuiceFS serves as a critical storage layer. Breach of database credentials may extend compromise beyond JuiceFS itself.
Affected systems
JuiceFS installations running version 1.3.1 or earlier are affected. This includes both open-source deployments and commercial distributions using the vulnerable code path. Exposure depends on network accessibility of the debug/metrics endpoints; systems with network-level access controls may have reduced risk, though this should not be relied upon as a substitute for patching.
Exploitability
Exploitation requires only unauthenticated HTTP access to the affected JuiceFS service. No special tools, authentication, or user interaction are needed. The attack is straightforward: an attacker sends a simple HTTP GET request to /debug/pprof/cmdline to harvest credentials, then uses those credentials to access the metadata database. The low complexity and absence of barriers to entry make this vulnerability practically exploitable in most network environments.
Remediation
Upgrade JuiceFS to a patched version that includes commit a46979c or later. This commit addresses the improper handler registration by ensuring pprof and debug endpoints are not exposed on the default multiplexer without authentication. Verify the patch has been applied and restart JuiceFS services. Organizations unable to patch immediately should implement network-level access controls to restrict traffic to debug endpoints, though this is a temporary mitigation only.
Patch guidance
Apply the fix committed in a46979c or verify your JuiceFS version is newer than 1.3.1. Consult the JuiceFS project repository and official release notes to identify the specific version number containing this commit. After patching, restart all JuiceFS processes and confirm that /debug/pprof/cmdline is no longer accessible without proper authentication. Test that legitimate pprof and metrics endpoints (if exposed) still require correct credentials.
Detection guidance
Monitor HTTP access logs for requests to /debug/pprof/* endpoints, particularly /debug/pprof/cmdline. Look for requests from unexpected IP addresses or patterns indicating reconnaissance. Examine database credentials and metadata engine connection logs for unauthorized access attempts or anomalous query patterns. Query audit logs for metadata structure changes that do not correspond to legitimate application activity. Implement alerts for any HTTP 200 responses to debug endpoints from untrusted sources.
Why prioritize this
This vulnerability merits immediate attention due to the combination of unauthenticated access, credential exposure, and direct filesystem metadata compromise. The CVSS 7.7 (HIGH) score reflects high confidentiality and availability impact. Because exploitation is trivial and metadata corruption can cascade into widespread data integrity issues, this should be treated as a critical priority regardless of KEV listing status. Organizations with internet-facing or untrusted-network-adjacent JuiceFS deployments should patch as an emergency.
Risk score, explained
The CVSS 3.1 score of 7.7 (HIGH) is driven by high confidentiality impact (credential and internal state disclosure) and high availability impact (DoS via pprof endpoints), offset slightly by the requirement for local network access. The lack of integrity impact in the CVSS vector understates the actual business risk, as metadata tampering is a critical threat; security teams should treat this as more severe than the numeric score suggests when metadata integrity is mission-critical.
Frequently asked questions
How do I know if my JuiceFS deployment is vulnerable?
Check your JuiceFS version against the vendor release notes. Versions 1.3.1 and earlier are vulnerable. If you are running an unreleased or development version, verify whether it includes commit a46979c. You can also test whether /debug/pprof/cmdline is accessible without credentials; if it returns a 200 response with command-line arguments, your deployment is vulnerable.
Do I need to rotate database credentials if I discover this vulnerability was exploited?
Yes. If there is any suspicion that an attacker accessed /debug/pprof/cmdline, assume database credentials were harvested. Rotate all metadata engine credentials, audit database access logs for unauthorized activity, and consider resetting JuiceFS metadata if tampering is detected.
What is the difference between a temporary network-level mitigation and a proper patch?
A network-level mitigation (firewall rules, VPN restrictions) can reduce exposure in the short term, but it does not fix the underlying flaw. An attacker with network access can still exploit the vulnerability. Patching is the only permanent fix. Treat network controls as a stopgap measure while you prepare and deploy the actual patch.
Will this vulnerability allow an attacker to access my actual file data, or only metadata?
This vulnerability grants access to the metadata layer—the database that tracks filesystem structure, permissions, and location pointers. An attacker with metadata access can corrupt or delete file references, making data inaccessible or invisible, but the vulnerability itself does not directly expose raw file contents. However, metadata compromise is nearly as damaging as data compromise because it breaks the filesystem's integrity.
This analysis is based on the published CVE record and vendor advisory information current as of the publish date. Security teams should verify patch version numbers and availability against official JuiceFS release channels before deploying fixes. The CVSS score reflects the vulnerability as scored by the source; organizations should assess business risk independently based on their deployment architecture and metadata criticality. No exploit code or weaponized proof-of-concept is provided. This advisory does not constitute legal or compliance guidance; organizations should consult their security and legal teams regarding disclosure, notification, and remediation timelines. Source: NVD (public-domain), retrieved 2026-08-11. Analysis generated by SEC.co (claude-haiku-4-5).
Weaknesses (CWE)
Related vulnerabilities
- CVE-2026-58378HIGHAllwinner H616 TV98 ADB Exposure Allows Root Access
- CVE-2026-54798MEDIUMAuthenticated Denial of Service in CPCI85 and SICORE Base
- CVE-2026-54799MEDIUMCPCI85 and SICORE Base Firmware Signature Validation Bypass
- CVE-2026-58191MEDIUMAppium Base-Driver Reflected XSS Vulnerability (v10.7.0 Patch)
- CVE-2016-20062HIGHSQL Injection in Simply Poll 1.4.1 WordPress Plugin - Unauthenticated Data Theft
- CVE-2016-20063HIGHSQL Injection in Single Personal Message 1.0.3 – Credential & Data Theft Risk
- CVE-2016-20065HIGHUnauthenticated SQL Injection in Product Catalog 8 WordPress Plugin
- CVE-2016-20066HIGHWordPress CP Polls 1.0.8 Persistent XSS Vulnerability