Skip to content

GHSA-3q2p-72cj-682c CVE-2026-54096 GO-2026-5096

File Browser: Improper Access Control Occurs via Pre-Created Public Share for a Non-existent Path

High Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.18%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.78% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
CWE-668 Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.63.7
Upgrade github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to this version or later

Description

Summary

This is similar vulnrability of CVE-2026-0035, which was fixed in Android MediaProvider with high severity. In the original Java issue, MediaStore.createWriteRequest() accepted attacker-controlled URIs and created a future grant even when the referenced media item did not exist yet. The Android fix added an existence check before creating the request.

filebrowser/filebrowser has the analogous issue in Go. POST /api/share/<path> accepts an authenticated request for an arbitrary path and stores a public share record without checking whether the target file currently exists. Later, when a file is created at that same path, the previously created public share immediately becomes valid and exposes the new file through GET /api/public/dl/<hash>.

Details

The vulnerable create path is:

  • http/share.go
  • sharePostHandler()
  • route: POST /api/share/<path>

sharePostHandler() only checks that the caller is authenticated and has share/download permissions. It then builds a share.Link directly from r.URL.Path and saves it:

s = &share.Link{
    Path:         r.URL.Path,
    Hash:         str,
    Expire:       expire,
    UserID:       d.user.ID,
    PasswordHash: string(hash),
    Token:        token,
}

if err := d.store.Share.Save(s); err != nil {
    return http.StatusInternalServerError, err
}

There is no Stat, Exists, or equivalent check before the public share record is committed.

The vulnerable consume path is:

  • http/public.go
  • withHashFile()
  • routes: GET /api/public/share/<hash>, GET /api/public/dl/<hash>

Each public request loads the saved share by hash and then resolves link.Path against the owner's current filesystem state:

file, err := files.NewFileInfo(&files.FileOptions{
    Fs:   d.user.Fs,
    Path: link.Path,
    ...
})

This means the share is not bound to an object that existed at creation time. It is bound only to a path string, so a share created for a nonexistent path becomes valid later as soon as that path is populated.

PoC

The PoC below starts from external HTTP input only.

  1. Authenticate to File Browser.
  2. Confirm /future4.txt does not exist.
  3. Create a public share for /future4.txt anyway.
  4. Confirm the public share returns 404.
  5. Upload a file to /future4.txt.
  6. Reuse the same public share URL and read the file content.

Reproduction commands:

TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8091/api/login \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"username":"admin","password":"Password123!"}')

curl -i -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8091/api/share/future4.txt \
  -H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{}'

curl -i http://127.0.0.1:8091/api/public/dl/JVeEQlLO

curl -i -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8091/api/resources/future4.txt \
  -H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
  --data-binary 'fourth-secret'

curl -i http://127.0.0.1:8091/api/public/dl/JVeEQlLO

Impact

An authenticated user can create a public share for a path before the file exists, and that same share later exposes whatever file is created at that path. This can unintentionally publish future sensitive files and bypass the expected invariant that a share grants access only to an existing object reviewed at creation time.

Reference

Original CVE: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0035

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
<= 1.11.0
No fix yet
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
all versions
No fix yet
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2
< 2.63.7
2.63.7

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 Go → 2.63.7

go
go get github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2@v2.63.7 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 8.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-367: Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition

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.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
  • Implementation: When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: If you cannot perform operations atomically and you must share access to the resource between multiple processes or threads, then try to limit the amount of time (CPU cycles) between the check and use of the resource. This will not fix the problem, but it could make it more difficult for an attack to succeed.
  • Implementation: Recheck the resource after the use call to verify that the action was taken appropriately.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that some environmental locking mechanism can be used to protect resources effectively.
  • Implementation: Ensure that locking occurs before the check, as opposed to afterwards, such that the resource, as checked, is the same as it is when in use.

CWE-668: Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere

The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-833g-cqhp-h72j
File Browser: Share API exposes the password hash and bypass token
Low Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-83xp-526h-j3ww
File Browser: Archive builder turns backslash filenames into path traversal (zip-slip)
Medium Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-7rc3-g7h6-22m7
File Browser: Colliding username normalization gives two users the same home directory
High Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9
File Browser: ScopedFs follows a dangling symlink on write, letting a scoped user create files outside their scope
Medium Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-fmm7-x4gx-8jhr
File Browser: Out-of-scope file deletion by a Create-only scoped user via symlink-following RemoveAll in upload failure-cleanup
High Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
File Browser: Authentication Bypass via Proxy Auth Header Forgery
Critical Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
File Browser: Command Injection via Authentication Hook Shell Substitution (Pre-Authentication RCE)
Critical Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-8c9q-7855-wfxq
File Browser has a Command Execution Allowlist Bypass via Shell Metacharacter Injection
High Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor