The storage finding crosses a different boundary from an active guest-to-host escape. A sandbox can be deleted while physical or logical blocks remain allocated in a shared device-mapper backing system. If the allocator later hands the blocks to another tenant without isolating or clearing old contents, the later workload may recover residual bytes from a…
Inspect the ClaimsCase · DiggingBeagle record
Vercel Sandbox exposed recycled disk blocks across deleted tenant sandboxes
Vercel found that disk blocks used by deleted sandboxes could remain readable to subsequently allocated tenants.
Vercel Sandbox storage lifecycle as reported in its October 2026 challenge review. Internal evidence of cross-allocation remnants; exact affected data volume, external victim identities and publicly replayable fix verification not disclosed.
Assessment profile
Assessment method- Setting
- controlled live
- Exploitation
- observed live
- Impact
- Band 3 of 4
- Evidence
- Grade B
- AI role
- AGAINST AI
Basis and provenance
Vercel's challenge report attributes this discovery to an internal reviewer and describes reading old blocks from newly assigned storage. A specific publicly retested erasure or encryption fix was not presented for this finding. Separate snapshot trust fixes do not prove recycled block cleanup.
Impact basis: Vercel reports sandbox tenants could access recycled device-mapper blocks from deleted sandboxes, a cross-tenant storage-confidentiality boundary. The byte count and existence of third-party customer data in captured blocks are unquantified.
Assessed Oct 19, 2026 using diggingbeagle.assessment/1.
Evidence basis: CLM-VERCEL-SANDBOX-DISK-REUSE · Vercel: findings from the one-million-dollar Sandbox challenge
At a glance
This is a storage lifecycle problem, independent of the kernel packet issue and the separate snapshot-restoration authorization defect.
Read the implicationsThe public statement does not disclose affected byte counts, identifiable victims, specific block-device configuration, or a independently verified erasure test. It reports a real internal finding rather than a known criminal extraction.
Limits and uncertaintyFull account
The storage finding crosses a different boundary from an active guest-to-host escape. A sandbox can be deleted while physical or logical blocks remain allocated in a shared device-mapper backing system. If the allocator later hands the blocks to another tenant without isolating or clearing old contents, the later workload may recover residual bytes from a sandbox that no longer exists.
Vercel attributed this finding to an internal researcher and included it separately from the kernel networking disclosure and the snapshot metadata issue. The public account is evidence of a discovered defect, not proof of a named customer losing information. It does not specify the number or sensitivity of accessible bytes, the exact affected storage target, or independent verification of the remediation. These absences constrain claims about exploitation scale.
A correct tenant-isolation test must span deletion, reuse, abnormal shutdown and recovery. Restricting concurrent tenants' processes will not repair residual data in an allocator. Sanitization or per-tenant encryption must be validated against the actual block lifecycle, with old content made unrecoverable before reassignment.
Claims & evidence
CLM-VERCEL-SANDBOX-DISK-REUSEVercel reported an internal finding in which newly allocated sandbox storage could read recycled Linux device-mapper blocks left by deleted sandboxes.supported
Basis: reported finding
- supportsVercel: findings from the one-million-dollar Sandbox challengeprimary disclosure
Pre-bounty internal findings, device-mapper cross-tenant data leak
Implications
This is a storage lifecycle problem, independent of the kernel packet issue and the separate snapshot-restoration authorization defect.
Controls and mitigations
- Verify storage zeroing or independent per-tenant encryption on reuse, including crash recovery and snapshot disposal.
Unknowns and contradictions
- The public statement does not disclose affected byte counts, identifiable victims, specific block-device configuration, or a independently verified erasure test. It reports a real internal finding rather than a known criminal extraction.
Sources and citation
Material revision history
- Oct 19, 2026 · Published version · first publication · revision 174
- Oct 19, 2026 · Canonical change recorded · material revision · revision 175Public fields changed: assessment_profile