How severe is GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362?

GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 has a CVSS score of 8/10, rated HIGH. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362?

GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 affects the following packages: github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 (Go). Ecosystems affected: Go.

How do I fix GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362?

Update github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to 2.33.8 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 in my Go dependencies?

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.

How do I mitigate GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

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 does O3 Security protect against GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362?

GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.9%, placing it in the 55th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

When was GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 was published on June 30, 2025 and was last updated on June 9, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐹 Go

GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362

HIGH

File Browser: Command Execution not Limited to Scope

Also known asCVE-2025-52904GO-2025-3793

Published

Jun 30, 2025

Updated

Jun 9, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.9%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk55th percentile-0.26%

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/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

[!NOTE] This feature has been disabled by default for all installations from v2.33.8 onwards, including for existent installations. To exploit this vulnerability, the instance administrator must turn on a feature and ignore all the warnings about known vulnerabilities. We're publishing this new advisory to make it clear that all vulnerabilities concerning this feature are disclosed.

For more information about tracking vulnerability issues related to the Command Execution features, check https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/issues/5199.

Summary

In the web application, all users have a scope assigned, and they only have access to the files within that scope. The Command Execution feature of Filebrowser allows the execution of shell commands which are not restricted to the scope, potentially giving an attacker read and write access to all files managed by the server.

Impact

Shell commands are executed with the uid of the server process without any further restrictions. This means, that they will have access to at least

all files managed by the application from all scopes, even those the user does not have access to in the GUI.
the Filebrowser database file containing the password hashes of all accounts.

The concrete impact depends on the commands being granted to the attacker, but due to other vulnerabilities identified ("Bypass Command Execution Allowlist", "Shell Commands Can Spawn Other Commands", "Insecure File Permissions") it is likely, that full read- and write-access will exist.

Read access to the database means, that the attacker is capable of extracting all user password hashes. This enables an offline dictionary attack on the passwords of all accounts, though the choice of the password hash function (bcrypt with a complexity of 10) gives a strong protection against such attacks. Write access to the database means that attackers are capable of changing a user's password hash, allowing them to impersonate any user account, including an administrator.

Vulnerability Description

Shell commands executed by a user are created as a simple subprocess of the application without any further restrictions. That means, that they have full access to files accessible by the application. The scope that is assigned to every account is not considered.

As a prerequisite, an attacker needs an account with the Execute Commands permission and some permitted commands.

Proof of Concept

Any exploit highly depends on the commands granted to the attacker. The following screenshot shows, how all password hashes can be extracted using only the grep command:

Recommended Countermeasures

Until this issue is fixed, we recommend to completely disable Execute commands for all accounts. Since the command execution is an inherently dangerous feature that is not used by all deployments, it should be possible to completely disable it in the application's configuration. As a defense-in-depth measure, organizations not requiring command execution should operate the Filebrowser from a distroless container image.

There are two approaches to fixing this issue:

Limiting the process when it is started e.g., by using user namespaces with a tool like Bubblewrap. If this path is chosen, it is important to use a method that works both on a bare-metal server and within an unprivileged container.
Re-architecting the command execution feature so that file in the various scopes have a distinct uid as an owner and all shell command are executed under the uid of the user's scope.

Timeline

2025-03-26 Identified the vulnerability in version 2.32.0
2025-04-11 Contacted the project
2025-04-18 Vulnerability disclosed to the project
2025-06-25 Uploaded advisories to the project's GitHub repository
2025-06-25 CVE ID assigned by GitHub
2025-06-25 A patch version has been pushed to disable the feature for all existent installations, and making it opt-in. A warning has been added to the documentation and is printed on the console if the feature is enabled. Due to the project being in maintenance-only mode, the bug has not been fixed. Fix is tracked on https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/issues/5199.

References

Credits

Mathias Tausig (SBA Research)

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐹Go	`github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2`	all versions	2.33.8

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

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.
Fix
Update github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to 2.33.8 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 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-hc8f-m8g5-8362 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-hc8f-m8g5-8362. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

> [!NOTE] > **This feature has been disabled by default for all installations from v2.33.8 onwards, including for existent installations**. To exploit this vulnerability, the instance administrator must turn on a feature and ignore all the warnings about known vulnerabilities. We're publishing this new advisory to make it clear that all vulnerabilities concerning this feature are disclosed. > > For more information about tracking vulnerability issues related to the Command Execution features, check https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/issues/5199. ## Summary ## In the web application,

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-hc8f-m8g5-8362 across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works