CVE-2026-112941VulnerabilityPublished 9 Nov 2026

gam · filelock: SoftReadWriteLock follows a lock tree swapped in after its first acquire and writes lock records into

Affects gamSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-112941· Low 3.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 20:03 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:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 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

Mitigation requires preventing untrusted local users from having write access to the lock's parent directory, especially in sticky directories like /tmp. Ensuring that only trusted users can create or replace the .rw directory tree before the lock user's first acquire prevents exploitation. Monitoring and restricting directory permissions to avoid writable shared directories for untrusted users is recommended.

Description

CVE-2026-112941 describes a local integrity vulnerability in the SoftReadWriteLock implementation used by filelock versions 4.1.0 through 4.2.0. A local unprivileged user with write access to the lock's parent directory can replace the lock directory tree with symbolic links after the lock's initial acquisition, causing the lock user process to write lock records into attacker-controlled paths. This results in the lock user's files being replaced or deleted, breaking functionality such as a git repository's operation. The vulnerability requires specific conditions including directory write access and the presence of sticky bits in parent directories like /tmp. The impact is limited to integrity loss with no confidentiality or availability impact. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 3.3 (Low).

Impact

The vulnerability allows a local unprivileged user with write access to the lock's parent directory to cause the lock user process to write and delete files in directories the lock user can write, using the lock user's privileges. This results in integrity loss by replacing or deleting files such as .git/HEAD, causing failures in applications relying on the lock (e.g., git status fails). There is no confidentiality or availability impact, and the lock mechanism itself continues to function. The attacker cannot control the content written, only the location and presence of files.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Nov 2026, 20:03 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats