CVE-2026-112914VulnerabilityPublished 27 Oct 2026

hatch · filelock: SoftFileLock stale-break restore follows a swapped-in symbolic link and hard-links a file of the user

Affects hatchSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-112914· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.18.1_2 when convenient.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 23:13 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.18.1_2

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

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

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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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 hatch to 1.18.1_2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewhatch`pkg:brew/hatch`Other threats	Affected >=1.18.1_1 <1.18.1_2	Fixed in 1.18.1_2

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

Description

When a soft-lock stale break finds that the marker (the lock file at `<path>`) it renamed aside was a live one recreated by a successor, the restore branch of `break_lock_file()` checks the break name with `lstat` (a check that reads a name without following a symbolic link) and then calls `os.link(break_path, lock_file)` by name. On CPython 3.12 and later on Linux (and on macOS) that call follows a symbolic link (a file that redirects to another path). A local user (the other user below) who can write a shared lock directory without the sticky bit (a directory flag that lets only a file's owner rename or remove it) replaces the break name with a symbolic link between those two calls. The `SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock`, `SoftFileLease` or `lifetime` break of the user running the lock (the lock user below) then creates a hard link (a second name for the same file), in that directory, to any of the lock user's own files on the same filesystem. That includes files inside directories the other user cannot enter and links that `fs.protected_hardlinks` (a Linux setting that forbids hard links to files one does not own) refuses the other user when it asks itself. The link exposes the file's size, times, mode and owner, keeps the inode (the kernel's identity for a file, independent of its name) alive, and gives the other user a name it can move. On 4.2.0 a later `FileLock` of the lock user on that name truncated the file. Affected versions: filelock >= 4.1.0 and <= 4.2.0 (finding `ANT-2026-SB29HIAL`). ## Severity **CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N, 5.3 (Medium).** `AV:L` (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. `AC:H` (high attack complexity): two short races against a few lines of Python, timed by inotify (a Linux facility that reports file events), and the lock user must take the lock again and again (the scanner won 10 runs out of 10 after 9 to 910 lock cycles). `PR:L` (low privileges): an unprivileged account is enough. `UI:N` (no user interaction): the lock user's process acts on its own. `C:L` (low confidentiality impact): the file's metadata through the new name, not its content. `I:H` (high integrity impact): the other user chooses the file, and whatever the lock user later does to names in that directory lands on it. On 4.2.0 the lock user's own `FileLock` truncated the 17-byte private file to 0 bytes and, with a permissive `mode`, would have changed its mode too. `A:N` (no availability impact): the lock keeps working. Classification from the review: security, conditional on a shared parent without the sticky bit, which crosses the protected-directory boundary. The scanner rated it high (CWE-363). This is an earlier-public-context finding. #786 added the restore branch and guarded a symbolic link already present when `lstat` runs, not one swapped in after it. ## Scope and preconditions - The other user can write the lock directory, and it has no sticky bit: a `0777` or group-writable cache or project directory. In a root-owned `1777` directory the unprivileged lock user cannot rename the other user's marker and only waits. In a `1777` directory the lock user owns, `fs.protected_symlinks=1` (a Linux setting that refuses to follow another user's symbolic link in a world-writable sticky directory) makes the `link` fail with `EACCES` (permission denied). Testing showed no effect in sticky directories. - The interpreter's `os.link` follows symbolic links. CPython 3.14 on Linux issues `linkat(..., AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW)`. CPython 3.11 issues `link(2)`, which links the symbolic link itself, and is not affected. The scanner did not test 3.12 and 3.13. On macOS `link(2)` follows (confirmed in our review on macOS 27.0.1: a plain `os.link` of a symbolic link gave the target `st_nlink` 2, that is two names). - The target file and the lock directory are on the same filesystem (hard links cannot cross filesystems), and the lock user takes the lock more than once. - Every soft-lock path reaches the branch: `SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock`, `SoftFileLease` and the `lifetime` break. The native `FileLock` does not, but it is the consumer that turns the planted link into a truncation. filelock's checks against another local user hold only when no other user can replace the lock's directory or any of its ancestors. That is the case when each ancestor belongs to the lock user or root and is either not writable by others or sticky. A user who can rename entries in a non-sticky directory above the lock controls every name below it, which no file-based lock can defend against. This finding is about what the lock itself adds inside such a directory, a hard link the other user cannot make on its own. ## Affected code At the scanned commit b831496, the restore branch of [`break_lock_file`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_util.py#L113-L122) runs for [`SoftFileLock._try_break_stale_lock`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/bl

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…