CVE-2026-112935VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

scrapy · filelock: SoftFileLock stale-lock break removes a live lock file on a reused inode number and admits two holders

Affects scrapySource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-112935· Medium 4.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium : upgrade to 2.19.0_2 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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	4.7

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.19.0_2

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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
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 scrapy to 2.19.0_2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewscrapy`pkg:brew/scrapy`Other threats	Affected >=2.14.2 <2.19.0_2	Fixed in 2.19.0_2

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available in filelock version 4.2.1 and later that addresses this issue. Users should upgrade to a fixed version to remediate the vulnerability. Until patched, ensure that lock directories are not writable by untrusted users or avoid using filelock on filesystems that reuse inode numbers immediately. StrictSoftFileLock is not affected and can be used as an alternative. No other mitigation is indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

A vulnerability in filelock versions 3.22.0 through 4.2.0 allows a local unprivileged user to cause two processes of the lock owner to simultaneously hold the same soft file lock. This occurs due to a stale-lock break mechanism that incorrectly removes a live lock file when inode numbers are reused by the filesystem (e.g., ext4, xfs). The flaw requires a sticky shared directory where the attacker can create files and a race condition between lock contenders. The integrity of the lock is compromised, allowing concurrent holders to write protected data without detection.

Impact

The vulnerability allows local unprivileged users to break the integrity of file-based locks by causing two holders to simultaneously hold the same lock. This leads to high integrity impact as concurrent processes can write to data that should be mutually exclusively locked, potentially causing data corruption or inconsistent state. There is no confidentiality or availability impact. The attack requires local access and the ability to create files in a sticky shared directory. The attack complexity is high due to the required race condition.

Summary

The filelock library's stale-lock break mechanism, used by SoftFileLock, MarkerSoftFileLock, SoftFileLease, and their async variants, identifies stale lock files by inode number and modification time. On filesystems like ext4 and xfs that reuse inode numbers immediately after file deletion, an attacker with local access and write permissions in the lock directory (e.g., /tmp with sticky bit) can create a marker file with a future modification time and unlink it after a contender reads it. This causes the contender to remove a live lock file mistakenly, resulting in two processes holding the same lock simultaneously without any warning or logging. The vulnerability requires at least two processes of the lock owner contending for the lock and a race condition that the attacker can induce and prolong. The issue does not affect StrictSoftFileLock and is conditional on specific filesystem and directory permissions.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 05:46 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats