CVE-2026-112913VulnerabilityPublished 9 Nov 2026

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

Affects gamSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-112913· Low 3.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 20:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	3.3

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 5 Nov 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 9 Nov 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewgam`pkg:brew/gam`Other threats	Affected >=7.50.00	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, avoid placing lock databases in directories where untrusted local users can create files but cannot delete others' files (e.g., C:\Windows\Temp, C:\Users\Public). Use directories writable only by the lock user, such as per-user temporary directories or %LOCALAPPDATA%.

Description

On Windows, the filelock library's ReadWriteLock and AsyncReadWriteLock use SQLite side files for locking. A local user who can create files in the lock directory but cannot delete others' files can place a specially crafted SQLite side file (such as a -wal or -journal file) beside the database. This causes the lock user’s attempts to acquire read or write locks to fail with disk I/O errors or unexpected file deletions until the side file is removed. This affects filelock versions 3.20.4 through 4.2.0 on Windows in directories where untrusted users can create but not delete files, such as C:\Windows\Temp and C:\Users\Public. The vulnerability has a low CVSS score (3.3) due to its local attack vector and limited impact on availability only.

Impact

The vulnerability allows a local user with file creation rights but no delete rights in the lock directory to cause denial of service for the lock user by placing an undeletable SQLite -wal side file, causing all lock acquisitions to fail with disk I/O errors until the file is removed. In a deletion variant, the lock user’s process deletes a file named in a writable -journal file created by the attacker, causing integrity impact. There is no confidentiality or broader integrity impact in the common variant. The availability impact is partial and limited to the lock user’s inability to acquire locks. No remote or privilege escalation impact is indicated.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Nov 2026, 20:05 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats