Skip to content

Incus has Unbounded YAML Metadata Decode via Parsing

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 30, 2026 in lxc/incus • Updated May 8, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/lxc/incus/v6/cmd/incusd (Go)

Affected versions

<= 6.23.0

Patched versions

None

Description

Summary

User provided image and backup tarballs would be unpacked and YAML files parsed without any size restrictions. This was making it easy for an authenticated user to provide a crafted image or backup tarball that when parsed by Incus would lead to a very large YAML document being loaded into memory, potentially causing the entire server to run out of memory.

Details

It was found that getImageMetadata and backup.GetInfo call yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode() directly on the tar reader without limiting how many bytes the YAML decoder can consume. The tar entry hdr.Size is not checked before decoding.

A tar archive can be crafted in which metadata.yaml or backup/index.yaml declares a large size in the tar header, causing the YAML decoder to read and allocate proportional memory on the server. The gopkg.in/yaml.v2 library mitigates YAML alias and anchor bombs, such as “billion laughs,” through its built-in excessive-aliasing check. However, large flat YAML documents with many keys or long string values can still produce linear but amplified memory consumption of approximately 5x to 6x the input size.

A 200 MB tar entry for metadata.yaml may cause approximately 1.2 GB of heap allocations during decode, which may be sufficient to trigger an out-of-memory condition on a constrained daemon or significantly degrade service. Because the decode occurs in the daemon process, excessive garbage-collection pressure can affect concurrent operations. Appropriate API permissions are required to upload an image or backup archive.

Mitigating factors include the fact that the amplification is linear rather than exponential, at approximately 5x to 6x, and that upload bandwidth is the practical bottleneck for delivering large payloads.

Affected Files:

Image metadata parsing reads YAML directly from the tar stream:
Affected Code:

if hdr.Name == "metadata.yaml" || hdr.Name == "./metadata.yaml" {
    err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(&result)

Backup info parsing does the same:

Affected Code:

if hdr.Name == backupIndexPath {
    err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(&result)

if result.Config == nil && hdr.Name == "backup/container/backup.yaml" {
    err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(&result.Config)

This was confirmed as follows:

Command:

go test ./test/fuzz -run='TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode' -count=1 -v

Output:

=== RUN   TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode
   image_metadata_poc_test.go:80: metadata.yaml size: 10.2 MB
   image_metadata_poc_test.go:113: metadata.yaml hdr.Size = 10688940 bytes (10.2 MB) -- no size
       check exists in getImageMetadata before yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode()
   image_metadata_poc_test.go:124: decoded 50000 properties from 10.2 MB metadata.yaml
   image_metadata_poc_test.go:125: yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode() accepted 10.2 MB metadata.yaml
       with 50000 properties -- no hdr.Size check or io.LimitReader in images.go:1457 or
       backup_info.go:88
--- FAIL: TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode (0.11s)
FAIL

It is recommended to add a size check on hdr.Size before YAML decoding and to wrap the tar reader in io.LimitReader.

Proposed Fix:

const maxMetadataSize = 1 << 20 // 1 MB

if hdr.Size > maxMetadataSize {
    return nil, fmt.Errorf("metadata entry too large: %d bytes", hdr.Size)
}

err = yaml.NewDecoder(io.LimitReader(tr, maxMetadataSize)).Decode(&result)

A patch is available at https://github.com/lxc/incus/releases/tag/v7.0.0.

Credit

This issue was discovered and reported by the team at 7asecurity (https://7asecurity.com/)

References

@stgraber stgraber published to lxc/incus Apr 30, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 4, 2026
Reviewed May 4, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 7, 2026
Last updated May 8, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA: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.
(19th percentile)

Weaknesses

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-41648

GHSA ID

GHSA-67wx-r9xr-x75x

Source code

Credits

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