Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.44% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE Intelligencefilebrowser · filebrowser
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-C4FR-5F24-4WRJ ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedFile Browser versions >= 2.5.0 and <= 2.63.23 contain an incorrect authorization flaw in the direct-upload endpoint (resourcePostHandler in http/resource.go). Unlike the TUS upload handler, the direct-upload handler does not reject a target that is an existing directory; a POST with ?override=true aimed at a directory fails inside writeFile (a directory cannot be opened for writing) and the failure-cleanup path then calls Fs.RemoveAll on the request path, recursively deleting the entire tree. This cleanup is gated by neither the Perm.Delete permission nor the checkDescendants rule walk applied by the delete and patch handlers, so an authenticated non-administrator holding only the default Create and Modify permissions can delete directories they are not authorized to delete, including rule-denied files within them. Deletion remains confined to the user's scope because ScopedFs.RemoveAll still enforces the scope guard. The faulty cleanup was introduced in v2.5.0; no patched version is available.
File Browser versions >= 2.5.0 and <= 2.63.23 contain an incorrect authorization flaw in the direct-upload endpoint (resourcePostHandler in http/resource.go). Unlike the TUS upload handler, the direct-upload handler does not reject a target that is an existing directory; a POST with ?override=true aimed at a directory fails inside writeFile (a directory cannot be opened for writing) and the failure-cleanup path then calls Fs.RemoveAll on the request path, recursively deleting the entire tree. This cleanup is gated by neither the Perm.Delete permission nor the checkDescendants rule walk applied by the delete and patch handlers, so an authenticated non-administrator holding only the default Create and Modify permissions can delete directories they are not authorized to delete, including rule-denied files within them. Deletion remains confined to the user's scope because ScopedFs.RemoveAll still enforces the scope guard. The faulty cleanup was introduced in v2.5.0; no patched version is available.
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
File Browser versions >= 2.5.0 and <= 2.63.23 contain an incorrect authorization flaw in the direct-upload endpoint (resourcePostHandler in http/resource.go). Unlike the TUS upload handler, the direct-upload handler does not reject a target that is an existing directory; a POST with ?override=true aimed at a directory fails inside writeFile (a directory cannot be opened for writing) and the failure-cleanup path then calls Fs.RemoveAll on the request path, recursively deleting the entire tree. This cleanup is gated by neither the Perm.Delete permission nor the checkDescendants rule walk applied by the delete and patch handlers, so an authenticated non-administrator holding only the default Create and Modify permissions can delete directories they are not authorized to delete, including rule-denied files within them. Deletion remains confined to the user's scope because ScopedFs.RemoveAll still enforces the scope guard. The faulty cleanup was introduced in v2.5.0; no patched version is available.
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization. The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 14 Sept 2026 · Last source change 14 Sept 2026, 18:12 UTC · CWE-863 · Incorrect Authorization
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.