Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐹
🐹 Go
Not in CISA KEV
MEDIUM severity

GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9

MEDIUMFix: filebrowser/filebrowser@64511ce

GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.3) Path Traversal vulnerability in github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

File Browser: ScopedFs follows a dangling symlink on write, letting a scoped user create files outside their scope

Also known asCVE-2026-55668GO-2026-6020
Published
Jul 20, 2026
Updated
Jul 22, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 6, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

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 GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.4%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs31th percentile — riskier than 31% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.29%0.59%0.88%0.3%0.4%0.4%Aug 26Sep 26Sep 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.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 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 0 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

1 pkg affected
🐹github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

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

Summary

ScopedFs confines every File Browser user to a scope directory. Its within() guard is meant to reject any operation that follows a symbolic link out of that scope. When the link target does not exist yet, the guard walks up to the nearest existing ancestor and validates that instead. For a dangling symlink (target does not exist), the nearest existing ancestor is the in-scope directory containing the link, so the guard returns "in scope" and the subsequent os.OpenFile(O_CREATE) follows the link and creates the file at its out-of-scope target.

A post-auth user with Create and Modify permission can write attacker-controlled content to any non-existent path outside their scope that the File Browser process can write to. The precondition is a dangling symlink present inside the user's scope, which is the same out-of-band precondition the rest of ScopedFs is built to defend against.

This is a patch-gap variant of the GHSA-239w-m3h6-ch8v symlink confinement issue, not a resubmission of the already-published vulnerable-version behavior: GHSA-239w-m3h6-ch8v marks <= 2.63.13 vulnerable and 2.63.14 patched, while this proof reproduces on current master / v2.63.15 (be23ab3a15bf957928ecfed88de5ab67850c1b9c). The escaping-symlink-to-an-existing-target case is defended and tested. The dangling case is neither, and the gap is acknowledged in a code comment as "best-effort".

Root cause

files/scoped.go (commit be23ab3). The guard, including the maintainer comment that already flags this exact gap:

// Note: a dangling symlink whose target does not yet exist resolves to its
// containing directory and is therefore allowed; writing through such a link
// could still create a file outside the scope. This is treated as best-effort
// and relies on rejecting existing escaping symlinks, which covers the
// disclosure and overwrite vectors.
func (s *ScopedFs) within(p string) (bool, error) {
    root, err := filepath.EvalSymlinks(afero.FullBaseFsPath(s.base, "/"))
    if err != nil {
        return false, err
    }

    target := afero.FullBaseFsPath(s.base, p)
    resolved, err := filepath.EvalSymlinks(target)
    for errors.Is(err, fs.ErrNotExist) {
        parent := filepath.Dir(target)   // LEXICAL parent of the link path
        if parent == target {
            break
        }
        target = parent
        resolved, err = filepath.EvalSymlinks(target)
    }
    if err != nil {
        return false, err
    }
    // ...
    return resolved == root || strings.HasPrefix(resolved, prefix), nil
}

When p is a symlink whose target does not exist, EvalSymlinks(target) returns fs.ErrNotExist. The loop takes the lexical parent of the link path (filepath.Dir), a real directory inside the scope, and EvalSymlinks of that resolves under the scope root. within() returns true and guard() permits the operation. The write then dereferences the link at the OS layer:

func (s *ScopedFs) OpenFile(name string, flag int, perm os.FileMode) (afero.File, error) {
    if err := s.guard(name); err != nil {   // returns nil for a dangling escaping symlink
        return nil, err
    }
    return s.base.OpenFile(name, flag, perm) // os.OpenFile(O_CREATE) follows the link
}

The assumption that breaks: within() treats "target does not exist" as "brand-new in-scope file" and validates the containing directory. But the path component being created is itself a symlink pointing outside the scope. O_CREATE follows it and creates the file at the link target, not inside the validated directory. The existing-target case is correctly blocked, because the walk-up resolves the link itself to an out-of-scope path. Only the dangling case slips through.

For the layout below:

/tmp/root/scope/escape -> /tmp/root/outside/created-by-http.txt
/tmp/root/outside/                      # exists
/tmp/root/outside/created-by-http.txt   # does not exist yet

EvalSymlinks(/tmp/root/scope/escape) returns not-exist, and the fallback validates /tmp/root/scope. The final OpenFile still follows /tmp/root/scope/escape and creates /tmp/root/outside/created-by-http.txt.

Reachability over HTTP

Endpoint: POST /api/resources/<linkname>?override=true (also PUT, and POST/PATCH /api/tus/...). Verified trace against the audited source:

  1. http/resource.go resourcePostHandler requires d.user.Perm.Create (else 403).
  2. files.NewFileInfo is called. For a dangling symlink, stat() in files/file.go does LstatIfPossible (sees the symlink, err == nil, IsSymlink = true), then Fs.Stat follows the link and fails with ENOENT, so the code returns the symlink FileInfo with err == nil. The handler therefore enters the "file exists" branch.
  3. The branch requires override == "true" and d.user.Perm.Modify, then proceeds.
  4. writeFile(d.user.Fs, r.URL.Path, r.Body, ...) calls afs.OpenFile(dst, os.O_RDWR|os.O_CREATE|os.O_TRUNC, fileMode).
  5. ScopedFs.OpenFile runs guard(), which passes for the dangling link, then os.OpenFile follows the link and creates the file outside the scope with the request body as content.

The TUS path (http/tus_handlers.go tusPostHandler -> OpenFile, then tusPatchHandler) reaches the same sink.

Why existing defenses do not apply

  • afero.BasePathFs lexical confinement only neutralizes ... A plain link name passes it unchanged.
  • ScopedFs.within() is the dedicated symlink defense, and it is the component that fails: the not-exist walk-up validates the link's parent directory instead of the link.
  • The project's symlink tests (http/tus_symlink_test.go TestTusHandlersRejectSymlinkScopeEscape, files/file_test.go) only exercise escaping symlinks whose target exists. Those are blocked. The dangling variant is never tested, so the regression suite does not catch it.

Proof of concept

The PoC drives the real security boundary, files.NewScopedFs, with the same flags http.writeFile uses, and shows the write landing outside the scope. A control test shows the existing-target case is still blocked, proving the guard is real and the gap is specifically the dangling case.

const writeFlags = os.O_RDWR | os.O_CREATE | os.O_TRUNC // == http.writeFile

scope := filepath.Join(root, "user")      // the low-priv user's jail
outside := filepath.Join(root, "outside") // sibling dir = another tenant / host path

// Precondition: a dangling escaping symlink inside the scope.
os.Symlink(filepath.Join(outside, "pwned.txt"), filepath.Join(scope, "evil")) // target does not exist yet

fs := files.NewScopedFs(afero.NewOsFs(), scope)
f, _ := fs.OpenFile("/evil", writeFlags, 0o644) // not rejected
f.WriteString("OWNED-OUTSIDE-SCOPE")
// assert: outside/pwned.txt must NOT exist

Observed result:

=== RUN   TestDanglingSymlinkWriteEscapesScope
    poc_test.go:49: VULNERABLE: write escaped the scope and created
        /tmp/.../001/outside/pwned.txt with content "OWNED-OUTSIDE-SCOPE"
--- FAIL: TestDanglingSymlinkWriteEscapesScope (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestExistingTargetSymlinkIsBlocked
    poc_test.go:78: guard correctly blocked existing-target escape: permission denied
--- PASS: TestExistingTargetSymlinkIsBlocked (0.00s)

The dangling test "fails" by design: the assertion fires because the file escaped. The control test passes: an escape_link -> outside (existing dir) write to escape_link/injected.txt is rejected by OpenFile with permission denied and nothing is created in outside/. That is exactly the scenario the project's own tests cover.

End-to-end HTTP equivalent:

POST /api/resources/escape?override=true
X-Auth: <token for user scoped to /tmp/root/scope with Create+Modify>
body: http-outside

-> ScopedFs.OpenFile("/escape", O_CREATE|O_TRUNC) follows the dangling link
-> file created at the link's out-of-scope target with the request body

The handler returns 200 OK, and the outside file contains the uploaded body.

Impact

  • Direct primitive (live-verified): arbitrary file creation with attacker-controlled content at any non-existent path outside the user's scope that the File Browser process user can write to.
  • Cross-tenant integrity (source-reasoned): in multi-user deployments the scopes are sibling directories under one server root. A low-priv user can plant files into another user's home (a script, an HTML page later served, a config the victim trusts).
  • Persistence / RCE on permissive deployments (source-reasoned): creating a not-yet-existent ~/.ssh/authorized_keys for the service account, a file under a web-served or later-executed directory, a cron or profile fragment. The official Docker image runs as non-root UID 1000, which bounds this to whatever that user owns. Bare-metal/systemd deployments that run File Browser as root raise this to host-level file write and RCE.
  • Scope limit (honest): this is file creation, not overwrite. Overwriting an existing out-of-scope file is genuinely blocked, because an existing target makes the link "escaping" and within() rejects it. The negative control confirms this.

Suggested remediation

For write/create/truncate operations, do not treat a dangling final symlink as safe merely because the nearest existing ancestor is inside the scope. The walk-up in within() should treat "the leaf is a symlink" as an escape candidate rather than validating its parent:

  • In guard() / within(), Lstat the target. If it is a symlink, Readlink it, resolve the link target lexically (join with the link's directory, Clean), and require that target to be within the scope root, regardless of whether it currently exists.
  • More robust: resolve path components one by one for the operation being attempted, or open the final component with O_NOFOLLOW (unix.Openat(... O_NOFOLLOW)) so creating through a symlink fails with ELOOP; or fstat the descriptor after opening and verify it resolves within the scope before writing.

Add a regression test mirroring TestTusHandlersRejectSymlinkScopeEscape but with a dangling target (os.Symlink(filepath.Join(outside, "newfile"), ...)), asserting both a 4xx and that no file is created outside the scope.

References

  • Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-54094 / GHSA-239w-m3h6-ch8v.
  • Affected code: files/scoped.go (ScopedFs.within, ScopedFs.OpenFile, ScopedFs.Create), reached from http/resource.go (resourcePostHandler, writeFile) and http/tus_handlers.go.
  • Confirmed unpatched at be23ab3a15bf957928ecfed88de5ab67850c1b9c (v2.63.15).

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐹Gogithub.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2all versions2.63.16

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/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2. 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/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to 2.63.16 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 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-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 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-8wc8-hf36-mjh9. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary `ScopedFs` confines every File Browser user to a scope directory. Its `within()` guard is meant to reject any operation that follows a symbolic link out of that scope. When the link target does not exist yet, the guard walks up to the nearest existing ancestor and validates that instead. For a dangling symlink (target does not exist), the nearest existing ancestor is the in-scope directory containing the link, so the guard returns "in scope" and the subsequent `os.OpenFile(O_CREATE)` follows the link and creates the file at its out-of-scope target. A post-auth user with `Create` a
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9: v2 Remote Code… | O3 Security