CVE-2026-112910

filelock on Windows ignores the `mode` argument. `FileLock(path, mode=0o600)` creates the same file as `FileLock(path)`: one with no security descriptor of its own (the Windows record that says who may access a file). Its access list, or ACL, is whatever the lock directory hands down to new files. filelock creates the `ReadWriteLock` database, which it asks to be `0o600`, the same way. In a directory whose inheritable ACL grants other local accounts access to new files, those accounts can open the lock file or database. They can take the byte-range lock (a lock on a span of bytes in a file) once the owner releases it and keep the owner's later `acquire()` calls waiting or timing out. They can read holder metadata an `on_acquired` hook left in a `preserve_lock_file=True` file. Where the directory hands down modify access, they can write to both files. `lock.mode` still reports `0o600`. The documentation neither promises an ACL on Windows nor says that Windows drops the mode. On Unix the same mode keeps other accounts out. Mutual exclusion between processes that follow the protocol holds on either platform. Affected versions are filelock 3.10.0 through 4.2.0 on Windows. Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported this in private. Finding covered by this advisory: - `ANT-2026-0KEO0DDO` [medium, CWE-732]: WindowsFileLock ignores mode; 0o600 lock files inherit the directory ACL. ## Severity **CVSS 3.1 `CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L` scores 5.3 (Medium).** `AV:L` (local): the other account needs a logon on the same host. `PR:L` (low privileges): an ordinary account is enough. `UI:N` (no user interaction). `AC:L` (low attack complexity): no race. `C:L` (partial confidentiality impact): the lock file (holder metadata) and the lock database are readable where `0o600` was meant to keep them private. `I:L` (partial integrity impact): in the directory layout the maintainers tested, the other account can also write both files, which lets it corrupt the lock's own state