Langflow vulnerabilities, page 4

184 vulnerabilities

Known vulnerabilities in Langflow products, newest first, with CVSS severity, EPSS, KEV listings and ransomware use, across 3 products.

8.8CVE-2026-9201ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.38%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a cryptographic weakness in the custom component validation mechanism. When the optional hardening mode that restricts execution to trusted component templates is enabled, the application validates component code using a truncated SHA‑256 hash. Because the hash comparison relies on only a portion of the digest, an attacker can craft malicious component code that collides with a trusted template hash and bypasses validation. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to introduce and execute unauthorized Python code within the Langflow process, defeating the intended security control and potentially leading to full compromise of the affected instance.
6.5CVE-2026-14470ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.34%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 could allow an authenticated attacker to traverse directories on the system. An attacker could send a specially crafted URL request containing "dot dot" sequences (/../) to view arbitrary files on the system.
8.8CVE-2026-14499ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.66%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.1 Langflow could allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary commands with elevated privileges on the system due to improper validation of user supplied input in the Python Interpreter component.
7.5CVE-2026-4503ibmlangflow desktop+1
EPSS score
0.41%
IBM Langflow Desktop 1.0.0 through 1.8.4 Langflow could allow an unauthenticated user to view other users' images due to an indirect object reference through a user-controlled key.
6.5CVE-2026-4502ibmlangflow desktop+1
EPSS score
0.41%
IBM Langflow Desktop 1.2.0 through 1.8.4 Langflow could allow an authenticated attacker to traverse directories on the system. An attacker could send a specially crafted URL request containing "dot dot" sequences (/../) to write arbitrary files on the system.
8.8CVE-2026-76059ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.68%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 An attacker who could submit custom component source code could bypass the static security scanner by crafting an annotated class-body assignment that resolved to a dangerous callable through alias tracking; the resolved value was never checked against the dangerous callable blocklist due to the logic error. If the crafted component reached the runtime execution path, the attacker could cause arbitrary operating system commands to execute on the server in-process, with the privileges of the running service.
7.1CVE-2026-17627ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.20%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information and inject messages into workflow history due to improper authorization.
5.4CVE-2026-17621ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.29%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 could allow a remote attacker to traverse directories on the system. An attacker could send a specially crafted URL request containing "dot dot " sequences ( /.. /) to view arbitrary files on the system.
6.5CVE-2026-17631ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.24%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability.
8.8CVE-2026-17625ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.80%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, and 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command.
8.8CVE-2026-17632ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.66%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of Python code during AST-based security scanning.
6.5CVE-2026-17622ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.49%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory.
8.8CVE-2026-17626ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.42%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 Langflow could allow an authenticated attacker to read, modify, or expose sensitive host files via Docker-based MCP servers due to incomplete filtering of dangerous Docker volume-mount and device-mapping arguments.
8.8CVE-2026-17633ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.68%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to code injection.
8.8CVE-2026-17624ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.68%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, and 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of module imports.
8.8CVE-2026-17630ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.76%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of configuration parameters.
8.8CVE-2026-17623ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.79%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to improper validation of the command field in MCP server configurations.
6.5CVE-2026-7657ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.38%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 Langflow could allow server-side request forgery (SSRF) due to incomplete and ineffective SSRF protection enforcement.
9.8CVE-2026-7803ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.64%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 could allow arbitrary code execution due to improper validation of flow nodes with missing or empty component type fields.
6.5CVE-2026-7658ibmlangflow oss+1
EPSS score
0.51%
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 does not properly validate the username field, allowing attackers to inject path traversal sequences and bypass containment checks. This enables multiple severe impacts, including arbitrary directory deletion, cross-tenant data destruction, and JWT signing key deletion leading to session invalidation.