CVE-2026-112913VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

prowler · filelock: ReadWriteLock on Windows acts on SQLite side files another local user places beside its database

Affects prowlerSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low : upgrade to 5.45.0_1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 05:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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, `ReadWriteLock` and `AsyncReadWriteLock` (the SQLite-backed reader/writer lock) connect SQLite to the lock database by its path, in every directory. SQLite derives three side files from that path: `<database>-journal`, the rollback journal (pages saved to undo an interrupted write); `<database>-wal`, the write-ahead log (changes kept outside the main file); and `<database>-shm`, the shared-memory index of the WAL. SQLite acts on whichever of these it finds beside the database before the lock runs any statement. Another local account that can create files in the database's directory, but not delete files of other accounts there, places such a side file beside the database and denies everyone `DELETE` on it, which a file's creator may do. `C:\Windows\Temp` (the temporary directory of services, granting `BUILTIN\Users` create but not delete) and `C:\Users\Public` are such directories. With a `-wal` in place, every `read_lock()` and `write_lock()` of the user running the lock (below: the lock user) raises `sqlite3.OperationalError: disk I/O error` at once, whatever `timeout` says, until that account removes its file; the lock user cannot. With a `-journal` beside a lock database that holds a table, SQLite replays the journal and deletes the file the journal names, a file of the lock user, and the acquire reports success. Affected versions are filelock 3.20.4 through 4.2.0 on Windows. The maintainers found this while reviewing the fix for the POSIX form of the defect, GHSA-v4x8-3wr5-3wq8, whose text says "Windows does not take this path" (review round 4, finding F2 of set D). It is not among the findings of the report Anthropic's OSS Scanner sent on 15 October 2026. ## Severity **CVSS 3.1 `CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L` scores 3.3 (Low).** `AV:L` (local): the other account needs a logon on the same host. `AC:L` (low attack complexity): create one file beside the database and set its ACL (access control list); no race, and the other account can place the file days earlier. `PR:L` (low privileges): an ordinary account that can create files in the directory is enough. `UI:N` (no user interaction). `S:U` (scope unchanged). `C:N` (no confidentiality impact): the other account learns nothing. `I:N` (no integrity impact in the scored variant): see the scoring note. `A:L` (partial availability impact): every acquire fails with an exception that `Timeout` handlers do not catch, until the other account removes its file; no crash, and the lock's own data is not changed. Scoring note. The deletion variant reads `CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L` (3.6): `I:L` because the lock user's process deletes one file the journal names, `AC:H` because it needs a lock database that holds a table, which filelock does not create, and a journal the lock user can open for writing. The lower-reading rule of this advisory set scores the variant that reaches every `ReadWriteLock` on Windows in such a directory, 3.3, and describes the deletion variant under Mechanism. Classification from the review: **security** (another account), availability for the scored variant. ## Scope and preconditions - Platform and classes: Windows only. `ReadWriteLock` and `AsyncReadWriteLock`, both of which connect through `_connect`. On Linux and macOS the lock takes other routes, covered by GHSA-v4x8-3wr5-3wq8. - Directory: one where another account can create files but cannot delete the lock user's. `C:\Windows\Temp` carries `BUILTIN\Users:(CI)(S,WD,AD,X)` (create file and create subdirectory, no delete child); `C:\Users\Public` and any directory with such an entry qualify. A directory only the lock user can write, such as `%LOCALAPPDATA%` or the per-user temporary directory, is not affected. - The other account creates `<database>-wal`, grants everyone modify and denies everyone `DELETE` on it. A file's creator may set both. The lock user can open and read the file but not delete it. - Deletion variant: the lock database holds at least one table (filelock creates an empty database, and the review's reproducer has the lock account create the table), and the other account's `<database>-journal` grants the lock account modify rights. The journal's tail names a file the lock user can delete. - What the lock user sees: `write_lock(timeout=1)` raised `sqlite3.OperationalError: disk I/O error` with the undeletable `-wal` in place; with the writable journal the acquire succeeded and the named file was gone; with an undeletable journal every acquire raised `sqlite3.OperationalError: unable to open database file`. - The documentation at the scanned commit states "the lock directory must not be writable by untrusted users" for `WindowsFileLock`, in its symlink paragraph; the `ReadWriteLock` documentation names no directory requirement on Windows. ## Affected code Scanned commit `b831496b0273`: the [Windows branch of `_connect`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_rea

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…