Threats tagged 'brew-oterm-cve-2026-112939'

`SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock`, `SoftFileLease`, their async variants and a `FileLock` that has fallen back to a soft lock on `ENOSYS` decide from the record inside the marker file whether its owner is gone. The marker is the file whose presence says a process holds the lock. They do not check who could have written that record. A local user who can write the marker but cannot remove it rewrites the holder's record to name a dead PID (process id). That position arises with an explicit `mode` with group or other write bits, or the default mode under a lax umask (the process setting that strips permission bits from new files), in a sticky or otherwise non-removable directory. The sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner remove or rename it. The next contender running as the holder's account, or root, judges the lock stale, removes the live marker on that user's behalf and acquires it. Two processes then run the critical section together and neither gets an error. Affected versions are filelock 3.22.0 through 4.2.0 (finding `ANT-2026-W1H9NXUH`). ## Severity **CVSS 3.1 `CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N` scores 4.7 (Medium).** `AV:L` (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. `PR:L` (low privileges): an ordinary account is enough. `UI:N` (no user interaction). `AC:H` (high attack complexity): the marker must carry group or other write bits (an explicit permissive `mode`, or umask `002`/`000` with a shared group), and a contender of the holder's account must ask for the lock while the forged record is in place. `I:H` (high integrity impact): two holders then write whatever the lock protects, and the holder is not told. `C:N` and `A:N` (no confidentiality or availability impact). `S:U` (scope unchanged). Classification from the review: **security, conditional** on another user being able to write the live marker. The scanner rated it high (CWE-345). The default mode under umask `022` is not affected. ## Scope and preconditions - The other user can write the marker. The application passes a `mode` with group or other write bits, which `fchmod` applies as given since 4.1.0. `0o666` is a common choice for a lock shared between accounts, although a soft-lock contender of another account waits as well on a `0o644` marker, since contenders only read and rename. Or the application uses the default mode (`0o666` through the umask) under umask `002` in a directory whose group the other user belongs to, or under umask `000`. The default mode under umask `022` is not affected. - The other user cannot remove the marker itself: the directory is sticky, or the other user cannot write it at all (a `0755` directory owned by the lock's user gives the same overlap). In a non-sticky shared directory the other user can unlink the marker without filelock, and filelock adds nothing. - A contender that may rename the marker asks for the lock: another process of the holder's account (several workers of one user) or root. A contender of another unprivileged account cannot rename the marker in a sticky directory and times out. - The finding reaches every class that publishes a soft marker: `SoftFileLock`, `MarkerSoftFileLock`, `SoftFileLease`, their async variants, and `FileLock(mode=0o666)` on a filesystem where `flock` (a kernel lock on an open file) fails with `ENOSYS`. These protections against another local user hold only when no other user can replace the lock's directory or any of its ancestors. That holds when each ancestor belongs to the 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, which no file-based lock can defend against. ## Affected code At the scanned commit b831496: the create mode in [`SoftFileLock._acquire`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_soft.py#L67-L71), the explicit-mode `fchmod` in [`_apply_explicit_mode`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_soft.py#L100-L105), the trusting verdict in [`_try_break_stale_lock`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_soft.py#L107-L123) and the [`owner_is_stale`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_identity.py#L64-L79) it relies on; the same call in [`MarkerSoftFileLock`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_marker.py#L74-L81) and [`SoftFileLease`](https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/blob/b831496b0273ecd11bf02b8d080ca8b673a538c1/src/filelock/_lease.py#L229-L256). ## Introduced The stale verdict that trusts the record came in with e35c3afac473 ("feat(soft): detect and break stale locks", #476, 2026-02-13), first released in 3.22.0. From then on a marker left group- or other-writable by the umask is forgeable. The re