Tox-dev Filelock: UNIX Hard Link (CVE-2026-112934)
Published Last modified Sources: OSV, Hersteller, 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 4.0.0, < 4.2.1..*
- Tox-dev Filelock
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
6.1
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3
6.1
CVSS v3
Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 14.2
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- 62.11 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- 6.1 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- 6.1
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- 14.2
- Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 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 22 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-62
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
SoftReadWriteLock (and AsyncSoftReadWriteLock, which wraps one) refreshes its holder record (the file under <path>.rw/holders/ that says a process holds or wants the lock) on every poll of a waiting acquire and on every heartbeat (the periodic refresh a holder runs to keep its record fresh). It does so by reopening <path>.rw/holders/<token> by name with a plain blocking O_WRONLY | O_NOFOLLOW open and writing at offset 0, without checking what it opened. O_NOFOLLOW makes the open fail only when the final name is a symbolic link (a file that redirects to another path).
A different local user (the other user below) who owns the lock's .rw tree reads the token of the user running the lock (the lock user below) from the holders/ listing and renames another node over the record. The other user owns the tree because it created it first in a sticky directory such as /tmp (the sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner rename or remove it), or because it can write a lock directory without the sticky bit.
A FIFO (a named pipe: a file whose open for writing blocks until some process opens it for reading) makes the lock user's write_lock() / read_lock() hang regardless of timeout. It also stops a lock holder's heartbeat thread without on_compromise (the callback that tells a holder it lost the lock) ever running, so the lock grants a second process while the first still believes it holds it. This works on a default Linux.
Where the kernel lets a user hard-link a file it does not own (a hard link is a second name for the same file; Linux with fs.protected_hardlinks=0; macOS and the BSDs by their defaults, not executed), a hard link makes the lock user overwrite the first ~135 bytes of one of its own private files with its holder record. Affected versions: filelock >= 4.0.0 and <= 4.2.0. Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported it in private as ANT-2026-AT33VEVC [medium, CWE-62], titled "SoftReadWriteLock holder refresh writes through hard links, hangs on FIFOs".
Severity
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H, 6.1 (Medium).
AV:L (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. AC:L (low attack complexity): on a default Linux there is no race. PR:L (low privileges): a local user with ordinary privileges is enough. UI:N (no user interaction): the lock user's process acts on its own. C:N (no confidentiality impact): the other user learns nothing. I:L (low integrity impact): where the kernel permits hard links to files one does not own, the lock user also writes its holder record over the first ~135 bytes of one of its private files. The bytes are filelock's record, not chosen by the other user, so the change stays within that record. A:H (high availability impact): the other user makes a lock user's acquire outlast any timeout and leaves a holder's heartbeat thread asleep. The lock then evicts the holder without telling it, and two processes believe they hold the write lock.
Classification from the external review: conditional security. The owner of a planted .rw tree can make the refresh open a FIFO and stall a lock user, including its heartbeat. Overwriting a file of the lock user through a hard link also needs a permissive hard-link policy. The scanner rated it medium.
Scope and preconditions
- Trust boundary: the other party is a different local account that owns the lock's
.rwtree. Either it created<path>.rw(withgen/andholders/) before the lock's first use in a sticky directory such as/tmp, whereprepare()adopts an existing tree whoever owns it and whatever its mode. Or the lock lives in a directory without the sticky bit that the account can write (the scanner checked a root-created0777directory). There being first is not needed, because the other user renames the lock user's own0700tree aside and puts its own in place;prepare()does not run again for a live lock object, and a waiting lock user recreates its record in the replacement. A tree the lock user already created in a sticky directory (mode0700) is out of reach. - FIFO variant: needs only that boundary. It works on a default Linux.
fs.protected_hardlinksplays no part, andfs.protected_fifos=1(a Linux setting that refuses some opens of FIFOs in sticky world-writable directories) does not help, since it coversO_CREATopens in sticky directories only, and the other user renames the FIFO into place inside its ownholders/. - Hard-link variant: also needs a kernel that permits a hard link to a file the caller does not own. That is Linux with
fs.protected_hardlinks=0(the kernel's built-in value; observed), while most distributions and the scanner's test image boot with1, under which the other user'slink()fails withEPERM(operation not permitted) and the file stays untouched. macOS and the BSDs have no such restriction by default; that follows from theirlink(2)semantics, and the scanner did not execute it. The target must be a regular file the lock user may write, on the same filesystem as the lock, in a directory the other user can search. A0600file in a0755home directory qualifies; a file under a0700directory does not. - Platform: observed on Linux 6.1.
AsyncSoftReadWriteLockruns the same code through an executor thread and loses that thread (from the code, not run). On Windows named pipes cannot live in a regular directory, so there is no FIFO case there. - Ancestor boundary: protection against another local user is possible only while no other user can replace the lock's directory or any of its ancestors. That is the case when each ancestor belongs to the lock user or root and is either not writable by others or sticky.
Affected code
At the scanned commit b831496b0273, OsFiles.overwrite opens by name with O_WRONLY | O_NOFOLLOW and writes without fstat (fstat would report the type of the file behind the open descriptor), while read just above it uses O_NONBLOCK and a regular-file check. The blocking open is _attempt_open via _open. prepare adopts an existing tree whoever owns it. The single caller is Participant._refresh_nonce, reached from _keep_claim_fresh on every poll of a waiting acquire and from heartbeat, which knows only lost and transient, not a call that does not return. The acquire loop checks its deadline and the _closed flag only after advance() returns (_sync.py lines 584–592). The code maps the heartbeat outcome at lines 603–613, and release joins the heartbeat thread for heartbeat_interval + 1 at line 446.
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), GitHub Security Advisories, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5
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-62UNIX Hard Link
Variant
The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently account for when the name is associated with a hard link to a target that is outside of the intended control sphere. This could allow an attacker to cause the product to operate on unauthorized files.
Entry at MITRE CWE-62
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/842x_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-fj95-fr6c-h845x_refsource_CONFIRM, Exploit, Mitigation, Vendor advisory, web
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-112934advisory
- 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-fj95-fr6c-h845SSVC assessment added —{"id":"CVE-2026-112934","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"poc"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-22T21:28:05.808470Z"}Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
Initial analysis by NVDNVD
Newly listed as affected:- Tox-dev Filelock (4.0.0 – 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) 4.0.0 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/842 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-fj95-fr6c-h845 Types: Exploit, Mitigation, Vendor AdvisorySource identifier: nvd@nist.gov
ReceivedGitHub
CVSS V3.1: AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Weakness type: CWE-62
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 4.0.0 until 4.2.1, SoftReadWriteLock refreshes holder records by name, allowing another local user with rename access to the lock directory to replace a record with a named pipe and stall the lock, or under a permissive hard-link policy to link a reachable target file and cause the lock user to write through it. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.CVSS added —AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:HWeakness type (CWE) added —CWE-62Affected versions (publisher) added —New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/112xxx/CVE-2026-112934.json">CVE-2026-112934</a>Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/commit/bfa066d65a1ba9106f86ee9d027f7588b9c77e03Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/pull/842Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/releases/tag/4.2.1Reference added —https://github.com/tox-dev/filelock/security/advisories/GHSA-fj95-fr6c-h845Source 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-2026-112934"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-112934.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-112934 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>