CVE-2026-112907VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

prowler · filelock: On Windows an oplock on a soft lock's marker holds SoftFileLock.acquire() past its timeout and blocks the

Affects prowlerSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.5 Low : upgrade to 5.45.0_1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 05:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.5Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Patch: Available – fixed in 5.45.0_1

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade prowler to 5.45.0_1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewprowler`pkg:brew/prowler`Other threats	Affected >=5.18.3 <5.45.0_1	Fixed in 5.45.0_1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

On Windows the soft locks (`SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock`, `SoftFileLease`, their async forms, and a `FileLock` that fell back to a soft lock) read their marker by path. The marker is the lock file whose presence says a process holds the lock. Each `acquire()` attempt that finds a marker opens it with `os.open` to read the holder's process id, and the lock renames and deletes a marker it judges stale, by path. On Windows each of these calls waits for an oplock. An oplock (opportunistic lock) is a request by a process that holds a handle on a file to be told before another process opens, renames or deletes that file; the other process waits until the holder answers the break or closes its handle. Another local account that can open the marker for reading can take a Level 1 oplock on it while no process holds it open, and leave the break unanswered. Every `acquire()` by the user running the lock (below: the lock user) then waits inside the open, past its `timeout`, `blocking=False` and `cancel_check`, and a stale marker under that oplock is not broken. Mutual exclusion holds and the lock touches no other file. Affected versions are filelock 3.22.0 through 4.2.0 on Windows. The maintainers found this while reviewing the fix for the report Anthropic's OSS Scanner sent on 15 October 2026 (review round 4, finding F4); it is not among the scanner's findings. ## Severity **CVSS 3.1 `CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L` scores 2.5 (Low).** `AV:L` (local): the other account needs a logon on the same host. `AC:H` (high attack complexity): Windows grants a Level 1 or batch oplock only to the sole open handle on a file, so the marker must have no holder handle when the other account asks. That account cannot bring this about; it waits for a holder that died, closed its descriptor, or left a marker past its `lifetime`. `PR:L` (low privileges): an ordinary account with read access to the marker through the directory's inherited ACL (access control list). `UI:N` (no user interaction). `S:U` (scope unchanged). `C:N` and `I:N`: that account can read the marker's content (process id and host name) anyway, and mutual exclusion holds. `A:L` (partial availability impact): one thread, or the event loop with `run_in_executor=False`, waits until the holder answers; 10 s per attempt in the two-account runs, no crash. Metrics in doubt take the lower reading. Classification from the review: **security, conditional** on an unheld marker that another account can open. ## Scope and preconditions - Platform and classes: Windows only. `SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock`, `SoftFileLease`, `AsyncSoftFileLock` and the other async soft locks, and `FileLock` after its `ENOSYS` fallback to a soft lock. `WindowsFileLock` opens its lock file on a separate code path that this advisory does not cover. - Marker access: the soft locks create the marker with `os.open`, which on Windows applies no more of `mode` than the read-only attribute (GHSA-8mx5-7m5m-r77g). The marker carries the lock directory's inheritable entries. Another account that those entries grant read access to new files can open the marker with a read handle that shares read, write and delete. - Unheld marker: no handle may be open on the marker when the other account requests the oplock. That is a holder that died and left its marker, a holder that closed its descriptor, or a marker whose `lifetime` has passed. While the holder keeps its handle, the request fails. - Holder behavior: the other account requests the oplock through an overlapped `DeviceIoControl` and never acknowledges the break. Windows cancels a thread's pending request when the thread exits, so the holder thread stays alive. A same-account process that answers slowly, such as an indexer, has the same effect for its answer time. - What the lock user sees: `SoftFileLock.acquire(timeout=1)` returned `Timeout` after 10.02 s with the second account's handle. In the same-account probe `os.open` with `O_RDONLY` was still running after 15 s and returned once the holder closed. The retry loop consults `timeout`, `blocking=False` and `cancel_check` between attempts only. With `AsyncSoftFileLock(run_in_executor=False)` the event loop waits. - Stale break: `break_lock_file` renames and unlinks by path. Both calls wait in the same way, so a stale marker under such an oplock stays, and no process acquires the lock until the holder closes. - Not affected: mutual exclusion, and the lock reads, writes and deletes no file other than the marker. ## Affected code Scanned commit `b831496b0273`: the [`os.open` in `_read_lock_file`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_soft.py#L323) ([function](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_soft.py#L312-L335)), called from [`_try_break_stale_lock`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_soft.py#L107-L123)

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…