Tox-dev Filelock: Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition (CVE-2026-112941)
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 4.1.0, < 4.2.1..*
- Tox-dev Filelock
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
3.3
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3
3.3
CVSS v3
Severity Low on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
0.1 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 2.7
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Low
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- 46.56 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- 3.3 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- 3.3
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- 0.1 %
- 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- 2.7
- 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-367
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) checks once per lock object, by name, that <path>.rw, <path>.rw/gen and <path>.rw/holders are real directories and not symbolic links (files that redirect to another path). It then keeps only a boolean. Every later record operation resolves the full path again, and O_NOFOLLOW (a flag that makes an open fail when the final name is a symbolic link) protects the last component only. Another local user (the other user below) who can write the directory holding the lock, or who created <path>.rw 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), can put a tree under that name whose gen or holders is a symbolic link into a directory of the user running the lock (the lock user below).
A long-running process of the lock user that has already passed the check then creates, renames over and deletes files there with the lock user's privileges, including in 0700 directories the other user cannot open. The names and bytes are filelock's own lock records, not chosen by the other user. The scanner's reproducer replaces .git/HEAD in the lock user's private repository so that git status fails. There is no race. Affected versions: filelock >= 4.1.0 and <= 4.2.0. Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported it in private as ANT-2026-WXXRI4M4 [high, CWE-367], titled "SoftReadWriteLock follows gen dir swapped for a symlink after first acquire".
Severity
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N, 3.3 (Low).
AV:L (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. AC:L (low attack complexity): the swap happens between two acquisitions, with no race to win. 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): the lock user's process replaces a file named HEAD, creates epoch and generation records, and deletes files whose names match the protocol's patterns, in any directory the lock user can write, with the lock user's privileges. The other user does not choose the bytes, but the files are gone and the chosen directory (a git repository) stops working. A:N (no availability impact): the lock itself keeps working and the lock user's process does not stall. The scanner rated it high; we scored the vector for a lock user with ordinary privileges.
Classification from the external review: conditional security. It is a cross-user replacement of a cached .rw tree that redirects later writes of the lock user through an intermediate symbolic link. It needs a planted tree in sticky /tmp or a writable parent without the sticky bit. Scoring note: we rate integrity low rather than high. The bytes written through the swapped tree are filelock's own records, not content the other user chose, so the lower reading of the CVSS integrity metric applies.
Scope and preconditions
- Trust boundary: the other party is a different local account with write access to the lock's parent directory. Without the sticky bit (a
0777scratch or spool directory, or a group-writable project or cache directory shared with that account's group) write access alone is enough. The other user renames the lock user's own0700<path>.rwaside and puts its tree in place. In a sticky parent such as/tmpthe extra precondition is that it created<path>.rw(with realgenandholdersdirectories, mode0777) before the lock user's first acquire.prepare()accepts an existing tree whoever owns it, and the other user later replaces its owngenwith a symbolic link.fs.protected_symlinks=1(a Linux setting that refuses to follow another user's symbolic link in a world-writable sticky directory) does not intervene, because the link sits inside the other user's own non-sticky<path>.rw, not in the sticky parent (the scanner ran with that setting). - Lock user: any process that keeps one
SoftReadWriteLockorAsyncSoftReadWriteLockobject (a singleton per path by default) and acquires it more than once, or is waiting for it when the swap happens. A fresh process that meets the planted tree getsRuntimeError. Between two acquisitions there is no timing to win. - Targets: any directory the lock user can write, on any filesystem. The other user needs only to know its path (
/home/victim/project/.gitin the reproducer, under a0700home directory the other user cannot open). - Platform: observed on Linux. The code path is the same on every POSIX platform and on Windows, where a junction (a Windows directory that points at another directory) at a directory component plays the symbolic link's part. The scanner ran Linux only.
- 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. A user who can rename entries in a non-sticky directory above the lock controls every name below it. No file-based lock can defend against that.
Affected code
At the scanned commit b831496b0273, OsFiles.prepare checks the three directories with lstat and caches _prepared. lstat reports what a name is without following a symbolic link. Every later operation takes a full path string, for example create (O_NOFOLLOW on the last component only), replace (Path(source).replace(target)), unlink and listdir. The callers that write through the swapped tree are Participant.publish / _create_holder, GenerationLog._incarnation (creates epoch), commit (links a generation record and renames over HEAD), _keep_claim_fresh, _sweep and _list (unlink). There is one OsFiles per lock object (_sync.py line 204), handed to every Participant at line 501.
Introduced
The once-per-object shortcut (_prepared) came with 367b111 ("fix(soft-rw): publish the head through gen/HEAD (#799)", 2026-10-08), first released in 4.1.0 (verified with git tag --contains 367b111, which answers 4.1.0). That commit opens the route between two acquisitions with no timing to win. The check-then-use gap i
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), GitHub Security Advisories, 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-367Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
Base
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
Entry at MITRE CWE-367
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-wfhq-q4j2-c37mx_refsource_CONFIRM, Exploit, Mitigation, Patch, Vendor advisory, web
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-112941advisory
- 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-wfhq-q4j2-c37mSSVC assessment added —{"id":"CVE-2026-112941","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"poc"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-28T14:14:46.244766Z"}Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
Initial analysis by NVDNVD
Newly listed as affected:- Tox-dev Filelock (4.1.0 – 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) 4.1.0 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-wfhq-q4j2-c37m Types: Exploit, Mitigation, Patch, 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:N
Weakness type: CWE-367
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 4.1.0 until 4.2.1, SoftReadWriteLock and AsyncSoftReadWriteLock cache a successful check of the <path>.rw lock tree and resolve its names again during later record operations, allowing another local user who can replace that tree after the first acquisition to redirect lock-record writes into directories writable by the lock user. 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:NWeakness type (CWE) added —CWE-367Affected versions (publisher) added —New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/112xxx/CVE-2026-112941.json">CVE-2026-112941</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-wfhq-q4j2-c37mSource 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-2026-112941"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-112941.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-112941 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>