CVE-2026-112938VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026

filelock: StrictSoftFileLock follows a symbolic link swapped in at <path>.filelock and creates claim files in a

Affects filelockSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium : upgrade to 4.2.1 when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 22:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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:L/I:L/A:H

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

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: 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 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 >=3.30.0 <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

`StrictSoftFileLock` and `AsyncStrictSoftFileLock` check `<path>.filelock` (the coordination directory that holds the lock's state) with one `lstat` call on its name. `lstat` reports what a name is without following a symbolic link (a file that redirects to another path). After that check, the code reaches `<path>.filelock/claims` by pathname for every later operation (`mkdir`, scan, publish, link, unlink). `_open_directory` passes `O_NOFOLLOW` (a flag that makes an open fail when the final name is a symbolic link), but the flag covers only the final `claims` component. The kernel follows a symbolic link in any earlier component. Another local user (the other user below) who can rename `<path>.filelock` exchanges it for a symbolic link after the check. In a shared directory without the sticky bit (a directory flag that lets only a file's owner rename or remove it), any user with write access can do this. Where the shared directory is sticky, such as `/tmp`, only the user who created `<path>.filelock` before the user running the lock (the lock user below) first used it can. The lock user's process (root's, if root takes the lock) then creates a `claims` directory and claim files (the files whose presence says a process wants or holds the lock) inside a directory the other user chooses but only the lock user can write. When the link points at another strict lock's `.filelock` directory, the stranded claims make that lock time out for every process until an operator finds and force-breaks each one. The `claims` property and `force_break()` resolve the same path with no check at all. Affected versions: filelock >= 3.30.0 and <= 4.2.0 (finding `ANT-2026-SVFEYX89`). ## Severity **CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H, 5.8 (Medium).** `AV:L` (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. `AC:H` (high attack complexity): the swap must land between the `lstat` and the next `mkdir`. The other user does not aim at that window. It flips the name in a loop with `renameat2(RENAME_EXCHANGE)` (a system call that swaps two names in one step) across repeated acquires, and won after 1 to 31 runs of the lock user's program in the scanner's trials. A sticky directory also requires it to have created `<path>.filelock` first. `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): through `claims`, one file name per planted link from a directory only the lock user can list. `I:L` (low integrity impact): a directory named `claims` and files with filelock's fixed claim names and contents appear, created with the lock user's privileges, in a directory the other user chooses but cannot write. The process overwrites or truncates nothing that exists. `A:H` (high availability impact): aimed at another strict lock of the lock user, the stranded claims deny that lock to every process until an operator finds and force-breaks each one. Classification from the review: security, conditional on the other user being able to rename the intermediate component. The scanner rated it high (CWE-363). ## Scope and preconditions - The other user can rename `<path>.filelock`. In a writable directory without the sticky bit (a `0777` or group-writable project or cache directory), any user with write permission on the directory can, even though the lock user created and owns `<path>.filelock`. In a sticky directory such as `/tmp`, only the user who created `<path>.filelock` before the lock user's first use can, because that user then owns both the directory and the symbolic link (the planting precondition of GHSA-9c4x-gm8v-wgc4). - The link's target is a directory the lock user can write. The effect that matters is on that directory. An acquire that completes through the link also holds the shared lock with its claims elsewhere, but a user who can rename `<path>.filelock` can defeat that lock's exclusion anyway. - `fs.protected_symlinks=1` (a Linux setting that refuses to follow another user's symbolic link in a world-writable sticky directory) does not interfere. The link is an intermediate path component, not the last one. In the sticky-directory case it also sits in a directory the other user owns. - Missed attempts show up to the lock user as `SoftFileLockProtocolError` or `FileNotFoundError`. The swap therefore works against a lock that a program takes more than once: a periodic job, a worker pool, or a caller that retries or waits with a timeout (each poll of a waiting acquisition is a new attempt). - The two entry points that need no race (`claims` and `force_break()` on a resting symbolic link) depend on the lock user inspecting or recovering the lock. The planted link invites this by making `acquire()` fail with a protocol error. The `force_break()` variant works only when the lock user breaks claims that name a live process on its own host without checking them first, as the recovery loop in `docs/tutorials.rst

CWE-363Race Condition Enabling Link Following (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product checks the status of a file or directory before accessing it, which produces a race condition in which the file can be replaced with a link before the access is performed, causing the product to access the wrong file.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.11.3 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging 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-363

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats