Full internal rename — build-verified, every module green (root + s3-rdma-sidecar
+ telemetry/server + all test modules):
- Dirs: weed/→s3/ (main tree); cmd/weed-{db,sql}→cmd/s3-{db,sql};
seaweed-volume→s3-volume; seaweedfs-rdma-sidecar→s3-rdma-sidecar;
s3/mount/weedfs_*.go→s3fs_*.go (~113 path renames).
- Imports: github.com/hanzoai/s3/weed/ → /s3/ across 1700+ files.
- gRPC proto services Seaweed/SeaweedFiler/SeaweedMessaging/... → Hanzo*
(8 services) via full protoc regeneration (correct descriptors, no sed-corruption).
- Brand SeaweedFS/Seaweed/seaweed → Hanzo/hanzo; internal X-Seaweedfs-* headers
→ X-Hanzo-*; .seaweedfs config dir → .s3.
- CLI is `s3`: go install github.com/hanzoai/s3/s3@latest | make install | Docker.
install.sh rewritten as a Hanzo S3 installer.
- External forks github.com/seaweedfs/{raft,go-fuse,goexif,cockroachdb-parser}
kept verbatim — immutable third-party module paths; NOTICE retained.
Residual (cosmetic, non-build): kafka loadtest test-proto package com.seaweedfs.loadtest.
3.4 KiB
Security Policy
Supported versions
Security fixes land in the latest release. Please reproduce against a recent
release or master before reporting; issues that only reproduce on old,
unsupported versions are not eligible for a fix or an advisory.
Reporting a vulnerability
Report privately through GitHub private vulnerability reporting (the "Report a vulnerability" button under the repository's Security tab). This keeps the report, the fix, and any CVE in one place. Do not open a public issue.
What a report must include
We can only act on reports that show real impact. Please include:
- Affected version (a release tag or
mastercommit you reproduced on) - The exact deployment and configuration: which components are running (master, volume, filer, S3, admin), which ports are reachable by the attacker, and what authentication is enabled
- The attacker's starting position: unauthenticated, a valid S3 user, an admin, or someone with access to the internal cluster network
- The trust boundary that is crossed (e.g. an unauthenticated client reading another tenant's data, an S3 user escalating to admin)
- A minimal, working reproduction or proof of concept
- Expected vs. actual behavior
A report without a working reproduction and a clear trust boundary is a hardening suggestion, not a vulnerability. We are glad to receive those, but they are handled on the normal issue tracker, not as security advisories.
Automated and AI-assisted reports
Output from static analysis, dependency scanners, fuzzers, or LLMs is welcome only when you have manually validated it and can supply a working reproduction against a supported version, per the requirements above. Raw tool output, speculative findings, or generated reports without a demonstrated exploit will be closed as hardening suggestions.
Trust model
Hanzo is built to run with its cluster components (master, volume servers, and the raw filer API) on a trusted network. Those internal APIs are not an authentication boundary unless you explicitly enable a control (for example volume JWT or filer authentication) and that control is bypassed. Exposing an internal port directly to untrusted clients is a deployment mistake, not a vulnerability in Hanzo.
Reports are in scope when they cross a boundary Hanzo is meant to enforce, for example:
- Unauthenticated access to data or operations that require authentication
- One S3 identity reading, writing, or deleting another identity's data
- Privilege escalation from a normal S3 user to administrative capability
- Bypass of Object Lock / retention where it is configured
- Remotely triggered data corruption or loss
Reports are generally out of scope when they require:
- Direct access to an internal cluster port that is meant to be private
- Full master, filer, or volume server access (already a full compromise)
- An insecure example configuration rather than a documented secure setup
- Local-only impact on a host the attacker already controls
CVE assignment
When a report is confirmed, we publish an advisory and request the CVE through GitHub. CVEs assigned by third parties without coordinating with us, or for issues that do not cross a boundary described above, may be disputed.
Response and disclosure
- We aim to acknowledge a valid report within a few business days.
- We will investigate, work on a fix, and coordinate a disclosure timeline with you.
- Please allow time for a fix before any public disclosure.