GHSA-w7qc-6grj-w7r8 CVE-2025-52995 GO-2025-3795
File Browser vulnerable to command execution allowlist bypass
- Severity
- 8.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.64%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 50.47% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- Fix
2.33.10- Upgrade github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to this version or later
Description
Summary
The Command Execution feature of Filebrowser only allows the execution of shell command which have been predefined on a user-specific allowlist. The implementation of this allowlist is erroneous, allowing a user to execute additional commands not permitted.
Impact
A user can execute more shell commands than they are authorized for. The concrete impact of this vulnerability depends on the commands configured, and the binaries installed on the server or in the container image. Due to the missing separation of scopes on the OS-level, this could give an attacker access to all files managed the application, including the File Browser database.
Vulnerability Description
For a user to make use of the command execution feature, two things need to happen in advance:
- An administrator needs to grant that account the
Execute commandspermission - The command to be executed needs to be listed in the
Commandsinput field (also done by an administrator)
If a user tries to execute a different command, it gets rejected by the application.
The allowlist verification of a command happens in the function CanExecute in the file users/users.go:
// CanExecute checks if an user can execute a specific command.
func (u *User) CanExecute(command string) bool {
if !u.Perm.Execute {
return false
}
for _, cmd := range u.Commands {
if regexp.MustCompile(cmd).MatchString(command) {
return true
}
}
return false
}
This check employs a regular expression which does not test if the command issued (command) is identical to a configured one (cmd, part of the array u.Commands) but rather only if the issued command contains an allowed one.
This has the consequence, that, e.g., if you are only granted access to the ls command, you will also be allowed to execute lsof and lsusb.
As a prerequisite, an attacker needs an account with the Execute Commands permission and some permitted commands.
Proof of Concept
Grant a user the Execute commands permission and allow them to use only ls in the Commands field.
Afterwards, login as that user, open a command execution window and execute lsof and lsusb.
Recommended Countermeasures
The CanExecute function in the Filebrowser source code should be fixed to only allow exact matches of the command specified instead of doing partial matching.
The correctness of this fix should be extensively tested in the application's automated test suite.
Timeline
2025-03-25Identified the vulnerability in version 2.32.02025-04-11Contacted the project2025-04-18Vulnerability disclosed to the project2025-06-25Uploaded advisories to the project's GitHub repository2025-06-25CVE ID assigned by GitHub2025-06-26Fix released in version 2.33.10
References
Credits
- Mathias Tausig (SBA Research)
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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 | < 2.33.10 |
2.33.10 |
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 → 2.33.10
- go
go get github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2@v2.33.10 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- 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.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/security/advisories/GHSA-w7qc-6grj-w7r8
- github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/commit/4d830f707fc4314741fd431e70c2ce50cd5a3108
- github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/releases/tag/v2.33.10
- github.com/sbaresearch/advisories/tree/public/2025/SBA-ADV-20250325-05_Filebrow…
- pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3795
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