CVE-2026-112915VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026

filelock ReadWriteLock: a crafted lock database makes every acquire stall or hang regardless of timeout

Affects filelockSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-112915· Medium 5.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 4.2.1 when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 22:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 4.2.1

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

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

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 filelock to 4.2.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIfilelock	Affected >=3.20.4 <4.2.1	Fixed in 4.2.1

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

Description

`ReadWriteLock` and `AsyncReadWriteLock` (the SQLite-backed reader/writer lock) run `PRAGMA journal_mode=MEMORY` on a fresh connection for every acquire. That statement makes SQLite load the whole schema (the `sqlite_master` table, which lists every table and index with its `CREATE` text) of whatever file sits at the lock path. The caller's `timeout` reaches SQLite only as `busy_timeout`, which bounds waits for another connection's lock, not schema loading. The only content checks reject non-regular files and WAL mode (write-ahead log, an SQLite mode that keeps changes in a side file). A local user who can place or overwrite the file at a `ReadWriteLock`'s database path can therefore make every `acquire_read` / `acquire_write` of every process using that lock ignore its `timeout` and `blocking=False`. That position needs a non-sticky shared directory, or a database owned by the user running the lock (below: the lock user) that other users may write. One 37 KB crafted file stalls each acquire for as long as its author chooses while the process allocates about 1 GB. A second 28 KB layout makes the acquire of a free lock run without end, spinning at 100% CPU and ignoring Ctrl-C. The effect is availability only: the other user reads nothing and corrupts nothing. Affected versions are filelock 3.20.4 through 4.2.0. Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported this in private as `ANT-2026-NFPRHMYJ` [medium, CWE-400]: ReadWriteLock: crafted lock database hangs acquire regardless of timeout. ## Severity **CVSS 3.1 `CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H` scores 5.5 (Medium).** `AV:L` (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. `PR:L` (low privileges): an ordinary account is enough. `AC:L` (low attack complexity): the other user plants one file; no race. `UI:N` (no user interaction). `A:H` (high availability impact): every acquire of every process using the lock runs for as long as that user chose, or does not return, with `timeout` and `blocking=False` ignored and `SIGINT` not delivered, so only killing the process ends it. `C:N` and `I:N` (no confidentiality or integrity impact): the other user reads nothing and corrupts nothing. `S:U` (scope unchanged). Classification from the external review: **conditional security**, an availability concern only when an untrusted actor can supply the database file (it needs a writable or replaceable database path). The scanner rated it medium. The review agrees with the mechanism and the precondition. ## Scope and preconditions - The other party is a different local account that can create or replace the file at the lock path. One way: the lock directory is writable by that account and not sticky (the sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner remove or rename it), for example a group-writable project or cache directory. There the account can be the first to create the database, or rename the lock user's database aside and put the crafted one in its place. The other way: the lock user's own database is writable by that account (`0666`), which is the setup a lock shared between accounts needs. In a `1777` directory the scanner wrote the crafted file over such a database in place, and the lock user's next acquire hung. The lock user must be able to open the file read-write, so a file the other user creates is `0666`. - Sticky directories and kernel settings. In a sticky world-writable directory such as `/tmp`, Linux with `fs.protected_regular=2` (a kernel setting) refuses the lock user's `O_CREAT` open of a file owned by the other account with `EACCES`. A database owned by the other user does not work there. That does not cover a `0666` database owned by the lock user. The scanner did not test systems with `fs.protected_regular=0` (the kernel's own default). - Platform. Every platform runs the same statements. On Windows the documentation already requires a lock directory that untrusted users cannot write, so the shared-directory setup is outside what the project supports there. - Ancestor boundary. Protection against another local user is possible only while no other user can replace the lock's directory or any of its ancestors. That holds when each ancestor belongs to the user or root and is either not writable by others or sticky. ## Affected code At the scanned commit `b831496b0273`: [`_configure_and_begin` runs `PRAGMA busy_timeout=...; PRAGMA journal_mode=MEMORY;` on a fresh connection](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_read_write.py#L814-L816), and for a read lock [`SELECT name FROM sqlite_master LIMIT 1` at line 832](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_read_write.py#L832). The code in [`_do_acquire_inner` closes the previous connection and opens a new one on every acquire](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_read_write.py#L745-L754). The only content checks

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats