Tox-dev Filelock: Unverified Ownership (CVE-2026-112911)
Published Last modified Sources: Hersteller, OSV, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
An exploit is publicly available. Update filelock to version 4.2.1.
- Affected
- Tox-dev Filelock
gte 3.30.0, < 4.2.1..*
- Tox-dev Filelock
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
6.3
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3
6.3
CVSS v3
Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: Hersteller, OSV, CVE.org
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 4.0
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Medium
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 61.62 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- PoC (publicly reported)
XIEM Effective CVSS
XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.
Read in glossary- 6.3 Methodology
CVSS v3
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 6.3
EPSS score
The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.
Read in glossary- 0.2 %
- Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile
The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.
Read in glossary- 4.0
- Low — this CVE sits in the lower 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: proof of concept · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 28 October 2026
CWE
CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.
Read in glossary- CWE-283
Detection rules
No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
StrictSoftFileLock, AsyncStrictSoftFileLock, SoftReadWriteLock and AsyncSoftReadWriteLock keep their whole ownership state as files in a directory derived from the lock path (<path>.filelock/claims, <path>.rw/{gen,holders}). When that directory already exists they adopt it after checking only that it is a real directory, not who owns it. Another local user who can create names in the lock's directory can create the tree before the first acquire on that path by the user running the lock (below: the lock user). In /tmp, /var/tmp or another sticky shared directory any user can do that; the sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner remove or rename it. The other user then owns the tree. They can unlink the lock user's claims while the lock user holds the lock, so a second process of the lock user, root included, enters the same critical section and neither process sees an error.
Against SoftReadWriteLock the same position also admits two writers with on_compromise silent. It redirects the lock user's own creates and renames into a directory the other user picks (the scanner replaced a repository's .git/HEAD with a filelock record written with the lock user's privileges). It also keeps the lock user's acquire or release running past any timeout. Affected versions are filelock 3.30.0 through 4.2.0 (finding ANT-2026-Q5VK5JEE).
Severity
CVSS 3.1 CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H scores 6.3 (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 other user must create the protocol directory before the lock user's first acquire on that path. That depends on the path being new, or on a reboot, a tmp cleaner or the documented <path>.rw recovery having removed its tree; once planted, the rest needs no race. I:H (high integrity impact): two holders write whatever the lock protects, and for SoftReadWriteLock the lock user's process creates, replaces or deletes files named HEAD, epoch and 0000000000000000000N in any directory the lock user can write. A:H (high availability impact): the owner of <path>.rw can make the lock user's read_lock(timeout=1) spin at full CPU without end, cost 22 s per acquire, or pin 1 MiB of memory per planted file until a heartbeat thread dies of MemoryError. C:N (no confidentiality impact). S:U (scope unchanged).
Classification from the review: security, conditional on the other user winning initial ownership of the protocol directory. The scanner rated it high (CWE-283). With AC:L the same impacts would score 7.1.
Scope and preconditions
- The other user can create names in the directory that holds the lock. In a sticky
1777directory such as/tmpany local user can. The sticky bit stops that user from renaming or removing a directory the lock user created, but does nothing for one the other user created first. - The other user gets there first:
<path>.filelock(strict) or<path>.rw(soft read-write) must not exist when the lock user's process first acquires._strict.pydoes not remove the directory at any point, so a path the lock user has already used stays safe for as long as the tree exists. The exposure is a new lock path, or one whose tree a reboot, a tmp cleaner, a cache purge or the recovery described indocs/how-to.rstremoved. - For the strict lock the planted directory must be writable by the lock user (
0777); a planted0755directory makes the lock user's acquire fail withPermissionErrorinstead. Planting only the outer<path>.filelockis enough. The lock user createsclaimsinside it, and the other user, as owner of the parent, renames thatclaimsaside and creates an empty one. - The Linux
fs.protected_regular,fs.protected_symlinks,fs.protected_hardlinksandfs.protected_fifossysctls (kernel settings, all enabled in the scanner's image) do not interfere. They cover regular files, symlinks, hard links and FIFOs, not directories. TheSoftReadWriteLocksymlink redirect below also passesfs.protected_symlinks=1, because the symlink (a file that points at another path) sits in the other user's own non-sticky directory. - The affected classes are
StrictSoftFileLockandAsyncStrictSoftFileLock(which inherits_acquire), andSoftReadWriteLockandAsyncSoftReadWriteLockwith default options.FileLockgives way to the same position (when the other user creates the lock file first with mode0666and unlinks it during a hold, a second lock user process acquires), so the strict lock is not weaker than the native one here. This advisory reports it becauseStrictSoftFileLockis the lock documented as fail-closed and already raisesSoftFileLockProtocolErrorfor a symlink or a regular file at the same names, while it uses a directory that belongs to someone else without any signal. TheSoftReadWriteLockhalf has no such counterpart: its redirected creates, renames and unlinks land outside the lock's own files. - A non-sticky directory writable by other users is outside the boundary below. There anyone who can create the directory can also rename the lock user's own tree aside, and no check inside the lock can tell that from a first use.
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: _ensure_protocol_directory returns for any existing real directory, whatever its owner or mode. StrictSoftFileLock._acquire calls it for both levels and does not look at directory ownership again. _attempt_doorway decides from the claim scan alone, and _unlink_owner_path_result counts a missing claim as removed on release. The sibling site is OsFiles.prepare. Its mkdir(mode=0o700) takes effect only when it creates the directory, and its lstat check reads neither st_uid nor the permission bits. It runs once per instance, and every later OsFiles method takes a full path, with O_NOFOLLOW guarding only the last component.
Introduced
The strict site came with the claims protocol in 650c17c79c54 ("feat(strict): replace shared markers with owner claims", #659, 2026-07-14), first released in 3.30.0. The SoftReadWriteLock site came with the <path>.rw tree itself in f9743288a288 ("fix(soft-rw): replace the state mutex with a generation log", #738, 2026-09-17), first released in 4.0.0. Both match the git tags; the advisory range starts at the earlier one.
Mechanism
The owner of a directory can unlink and rename every entry in it, whatever the entries' own owner and mode. A strict hold consists of two names, intent-v1-<token>.claim and held-v1-<token>.claim, in <path>.filelock/claims. The sentinel (the lock file at <path>) is permanent and says nothing about who holds. When the other user runs the equivalent of mkdir -m 777 -p work.lock.filelock/claims before the lock user first uses work.lock, every lock user acquire publishes its claims into a direc
Source: GitHub Security Advisories, OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), cvelistv5, NVD (NIST)
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| tox-dev | filelock |
|
|
| pip | filelock |
|
|
| pypi | filelock |
|
|
Vendors and products
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-283Unverified Ownership
Base
The product does not properly verify that a critical resource is owned by the proper entity.
Entry at MITRE CWE-283
Public exploit references
Publicly reported proof-of-concepts, exploit modules and detection templates for this vulnerability. NEOSEC links to the original sources only and does not provide any exploit code.
| Reference tagged as exploit | github.com (opens in a new tab) | PoC (publicly reported)reported, not verified | — |
References & sources
- github.comtox-dev/filelock/commit/bfa066d65a1ba9106f86ee9d027f7588b9c77e03x_refsource_MISC, Patch, web
- github.comtox-dev/filelock/pull/839x_refsource_MISC, Patch, web
- github.comtox-dev/filelock/releases/tag/4.2.1x_refsource_MISC, Release notes, web
- github.comtox-dev/filelock/security/advisories/GHSA-9c4x-gm8v-wgc4x_refsource_CONFIRM, Exploit, Mitigation, Patch, Vendor advisory, web
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-112911advisory
- github.comtox-dev/filelockpackage
Changes to this CVE
Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).
Record modifiedCISA ADP
CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: proof of concept, automatable: no
Show 2 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/security/advisories/GHSA-9c4x-gm8v-wgc4SSVC assessment added —{"id":"CVE-2026-112911","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"poc"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-28T15:09:37.663560Z"}Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
Initial analysis by NVDNVD
Newly listed as affected:- Tox-dev Filelock (3.30.0 – before 4.2.1)
Show 5 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Product configuration added —OR *cpe:2.3:a:tox-dev:filelock:*:*:*:*:*:python:*:* versions from (including) 3.30.0 up to (excluding) 4.2.1Reference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/commit/bfa066d65a1ba9106f86ee9d027f7588b9c77e03 Types: PatchReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/pull/839 Types: PatchReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/releases/tag/4.2.1 Types: Release NotesReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/security/advisories/GHSA-9c4x-gm8v-wgc4 Types: Exploit, Mitigation, Patch, Vendor AdvisorySource identifier: nvd@nist.gov
ReceivedGitHub
CVSS V3.1: AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
Weakness type: CWE-283
Description added or changed
Show 8 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Description added —filelock is a platform-independent file lock for Python. From 3.30.0 until 4.2.1, StrictSoftFileLock versions from 3.30.0 and SoftReadWriteLock versions from 4.0.0 can adopt a protocol directory created first by another local user in a shared parent directory, allowing that user to alter protocol state and admit concurrent holders. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.CVSS added —AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HWeakness type (CWE) added —CWE-283Affected versions (publisher) added —New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/112xxx/CVE-2026-112911.json">CVE-2026-112911</a>Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/commit/bfa066d65a1ba9106f86ee9d027f7588b9c77e03Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/pull/839Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/releases/tag/4.2.1Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/security/advisories/GHSA-9c4x-gm8v-wgc4Source identifier: security-advisories@github.com
Embed badge
Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-112911"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-112911.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-112911 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>