vulnerability / NVI-00010738 / Revision 2
filelock ReadWriteLock: SQLite reopens the lock database by name, so a planted symlink or journal file makes the lock user's process overwrite or unlink its own files
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for filelock. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
7.1 high
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
0.190%
FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.08771. Missing scores are unknown.
As of · FIRST EPSS
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
filelock
source listed>= 3.20.4, <= 4.2.0
`ReadWriteLock` and `AsyncReadWriteLock` (the SQLite-backed reader/writer lock) hand SQLite a name they do not control. On Linux the lock validates its database through a descriptor (the number the kernel gives a process for an open file). It then connects SQLite to `/proc/self/fd/`, a Linux path that names the process's own open file `n`. SQLite turns that path back into a plain path and reopens it by name, following symlinks (a symlink is a file that points at another path). On every POSIX route SQLite also acts on `-journal`, `-wal` and `-shm` files it finds beside that name. Those are SQLite's side files: the rollback journal (pages saved to undo an interrupted write), the write-ahead log or WAL (changes kept outside the main file), and the shared-memory index for the WAL. Another local user who can create or rename entries in the directory that holds the lock database can turn this against the user running the lock (below: the lock user). Such a directory is a `0777` or group-writable cache, build or project directory without the sticky bit (a directory flag that lets only a file's owner remove or rename it). That other user can make the lock user's ordinary `read_lock()`
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-v4x8-3wr5-3wq8 ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-112940 ↗
FIRST EPSS · official catalog
Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 2 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.