Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐹 Go

GHSA-6jm8-x3g6-r33j

MEDIUM

Soft Serve is missing an authorization check in LFS lock deletion

Also known asCVE-2026-22253GO-2026-4290
Published
Jan 8, 2026
Updated
Feb 3, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk19th percentile+0.25%
0.00%0.26%0.52%0.77%0.0%0.3%Feb 26May 26Jun 26

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.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected
🐹github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve

Real-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).

  1. 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"}'
    
  2. 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}'
    
  3. 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

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐹Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/soft-serveall versions0.11.2

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. 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 GHSA-6jm8-x3g6-r33j is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. 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.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-6jm8-x3g6-r33j is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-6jm8-x3g6-r33j. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## 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 831–9
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-6jm8-x3g6-r33j in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-6jm8-x3g6-r33j across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.