CVE-2026-112910VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026

filelock: WindowsFileLock ignores mode: a 0o600 lock file and the ReadWriteLock database inherit the directory ACL

Affects filelockSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 4.2.1 when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 22:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 4.2.1

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

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

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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

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 >=3.10.0 <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

filelock on Windows ignores the `mode` argument. `FileLock(path, mode=0o600)` creates the same file as `FileLock(path)`: one with no security descriptor of its own (the Windows record that says who may access a file). Its access list, or ACL, is whatever the lock directory hands down to new files. filelock creates the `ReadWriteLock` database, which it asks to be `0o600`, the same way. In a directory whose inheritable ACL grants other local accounts access to new files, those accounts can open the lock file or database. They can take the byte-range lock (a lock on a span of bytes in a file) once the owner releases it and keep the owner's later `acquire()` calls waiting or timing out. They can read holder metadata an `on_acquired` hook left in a `preserve_lock_file=True` file. Where the directory hands down modify access, they can write to both files. `lock.mode` still reports `0o600`. The documentation neither promises an ACL on Windows nor says that Windows drops the mode. On Unix the same mode keeps other accounts out. Mutual exclusion between processes that follow the protocol holds on either platform. Affected versions are filelock 3.10.0 through 4.2.0 on Windows. Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported this in private. Finding covered by this advisory: - `ANT-2026-0KEO0DDO` [medium, CWE-732]: WindowsFileLock ignores mode; 0o600 lock files inherit the directory ACL. ## Severity **CVSS 3.1 `CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L` scores 5.3 (Medium).** `AV:L` (local): the other account needs a logon on the same host. `PR:L` (low privileges): an ordinary account is enough. `UI:N` (no user interaction). `AC:L` (low attack complexity): no race. `C:L` (partial confidentiality impact): the lock file (holder metadata) and the lock database are readable where `0o600` was meant to keep them private. `I:L` (partial integrity impact): in the directory layout the maintainers tested, the other account can also write both files, which lets it corrupt the lock's own state but nothing the lock protects. `A:L` (partial availability impact): the other account can hold the byte-range lock and make the owner wait or time out. `S:U` (scope unchanged). Classification from the review: **Windows permission failure with security impact only where callers rely on `mode=0o600` across accounts**. The review had marked it an unconfirmed Windows claim, since the scanner traced stand-in Win32 calls on Linux. The maintainers have since confirmed it on Windows with two local accounts (see Evidence). The scanner rated this medium; the maintainers keep medium. ## Scope and preconditions - The affected classes are `FileLock` and `AsyncFileLock` on Windows (`WindowsFileLock`), and the SQLite database of `ReadWriteLock` and `AsyncReadWriteLock`. Both go through `_open_non_reparse_fd`. The soft locks create their markers with `os.open`, which also keeps only a read-only bit of the mode on Windows; the scanner did not examine them further. - The directory is one that other local accounts cannot write, which the documentation already requires on Windows, but whose inheritable entries grant them read (or modify) access to new files. Examples are a service's data directory readable by `Users`, or any directory with `(OI)(CI)` entries (entries that new files and sub-directories inherit) for another account. A directory whose ACL already excludes other accounts, such as one inside a user profile, hides the problem. - The other account must open the file. According to the `LockFileEx` documentation, read access is enough to take the byte-range lock, so it can hold the lock whenever the owner does not. The lock file exists while the owner holds the lock, and stays after release with `preserve_lock_file=True`. The `ReadWriteLock` database is not unlinked at any point. - Unix is not affected, because `UnixFileLock` creates the file with the mode and repeats it with `fchmod`. Mutual exclusion between cooperating processes is not affected. ## Affected code Scanned commit `b831496b0273`: [`_open_non_reparse_fd` reduces the mode to one `read_only` bit](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_windows.py#L252-L253). That bit is false for every accepted mode, because [`_check_mode`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_api.py#L526) rejects any mode without owner read and write, and an unset mode becomes `0o666`. In [`_nt_open`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_windows.py#L283-L310) the `OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES.SecurityDescriptor` field stays unassigned, and `read_only` only chooses `FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY`. [`_open_lock_database`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_read_write.py#L1079-L1086) passes `0o600` through the same function on Windows. ## Introduced [d0061e4](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/commit/d0061e4

CWE-732Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
Implementation
When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user), and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
Signing Malicious Code (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-732

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats