CVE-2026-112909VulnerabilityPublished 9 Nov 2026

gam · filelock: UnixFileLock truncates and chmods any regular file another user renames or hard-links onto the lock path

Affects gamSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-112909· Medium 6.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 20:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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	6.1

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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
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

No explicit patch or fix is stated in the provided data. Mitigation involves ensuring that directories used for lock files have the sticky bit set to prevent unauthorized renames, and that the Linux kernel setting fs.protected_hardlinks is enabled (set to 1) to prevent unauthorized hard links. Avoid sharing lock directories with other users who have write permissions. Review and restrict directory permissions to prevent local users from renaming or linking files onto lock paths.

Description

The UnixFileLock component in the FileLock and AsyncFileLock libraries on Unix truncates and changes permissions (chmod) of any regular file that another local user renames or hard-links onto the lock path. This occurs when the lock user acquires the lock, potentially allowing the other user to read and modify the file contents if a permissive mode is set. The vulnerability requires local user access and specific filesystem conditions such as writable non-sticky directories or disabled kernel hardlink protection. It affects all filelock releases up to and including 4.2.0.

Impact

A local attacker with the ability to rename or hard-link files onto the lock path can cause the lock user's file to be truncated and have its permissions changed. This can lead to unauthorized reading and modification of the file by the attacker, potentially resulting in code execution if the file is later executed or trusted by the lock user. The confidentiality impact is limited to the new content written after truncation, as the old content is lost. There is no availability impact. The attack requires local access and specific filesystem conditions, limiting the scope of exploitation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Nov 2026, 20:05 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats