CVE-2026-112935VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026

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

Affects filelockSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-112935· Medium 4.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium : upgrade to 4.2.1 when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 22:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 4.2.1

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
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 >=3.22.0 <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

The stale-lock break shared by `SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock` and `SoftFileLease` (and their async variants, and a `FileLock` that has fallen back to a soft lock on `ENOSYS`, the "not implemented" error) recognises the marker it judged stale by two values. The marker is the lock file at `<path>`, whose presence says a process holds the lock. The values are its inode number (the kernel's identity for a file, independent of its name) and its modification time (mtime) not being newer. The check runs after the contender has already closed the marker, so nothing keeps the inode allocated. On a filesystem that hands a freed inode number straight to the next file (ext4, xfs, overlayfs on them) the next holder's marker can carry that number. A contender still between its read and its break then renames and unlinks the live marker. Another local user (the other user below) who can create files in the lock's directory, a sticky `/tmp` included (the sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner remove it), forces this at will. It plants a marker with a stale owner record and a modification time in the future and unlinks it as soon as a contender has read it. Two processes of the user running the lock (the lock user below) then hold the same default-configured lock at once, and nothing raises or logs. Affected versions: filelock >= 3.22.0 and <= 4.2.0 (finding `ANT-2026-KIIS96IX`). ## Severity **CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N, 4.7 (Medium).** `AV:L` (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. `AC:H` (high attack complexity): a race, though one the other user starts, lengthens (by making the lock user's `/proc` read slow) and retries at every release. The scanner measured 10 to 26 overlaps per 20-second run. `PR:L` (low privileges): an unprivileged account is enough. `UI:N` (no user interaction): the lock user's processes act on their own. `C:N` (no confidentiality impact): the other user reads nothing. `I:H` (high integrity impact): two holders write the data the lock protects, and neither learns of the other. `A:N` (no availability impact): the lock keeps working. Classification from the review: security, conditional on a sticky shared directory, ext4-style inode reuse and at least two contenders of the lock user. Our review verified it across UIDs (a UID is a user account's numeric id): the other user as uid 1001, the lock user's processes as uid 1000, BUG on 4.2.0 over ext4. The scanner rated it high (CWE-367). ## Scope and preconditions - The other user can create files in the lock's directory; a root-owned `1777` directory such as `/tmp` or `/var/tmp` is enough. It creates, `utime`s (sets the timestamps of) and unlinks only its own file. The sticky bit stops it removing the lock user's marker (checked: `EPERM`, operation not permitted), so the lock user's own stale break does the deletion. - The directory is on a filesystem that hands a freed inode number straight to the next file. ext4 does (six create/unlink rounds returned one number six times, in the image's overlayfs `/tmp` and on a loop-mounted ext4), and xfs does. tmpfs returned six increasing numbers and the same run there gave no overlap, and btrfs does not hand a freed number back. - The lock user has at least two processes contending for the lock, and the displaced holder is still inside when the next contender polls (the breaker itself comes back one `poll_interval`, 50 ms by default, later). - The lock is `SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock` or `SoftFileLease` (or async forms). The default `flock`-based `FileLock` joins them only after it has fallen back to `SoftFileLock` on `ENOSYS`. `StrictSoftFileLock` does not call `break_lock_file`, so it is not affected. - The same overlap also occurs with no other user involved, under heavy same-account contention, when a contender breaks a dead holder's marker and a successor creates its marker within the same timestamp tick (about once in 750 crashes with 64 workers on a 2-CPU machine, not on tmpfs). 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. No file-based lock can defend against that. ## Affected code At the scanned commit b831496, the re-check sits in [`break_lock_file`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_util.py#L113-L118). Its callers are [`SoftFileLock._try_break_stale_lock`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_soft.py#L107-L123), [`MarkerSoftFileLock._try_break_stale_lock`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_marker.py#L74-L81) and [`SoftFileLease._try_break_stale_l

CWE-367Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
Implementation
The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
Implementation
When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
Architecture and Design
Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.3 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Race Conditions via Symbolic Links (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (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-367

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats