IBM Langflow OSS vulnerabilities

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 suffer from improper cache key isolation in the MCP Tools component. An authenticated attacker can access another user's MCP server context.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 allows an authenticated non-administrative user to execute arbitrary OS commands on the server at the privilege level of the application process by constructing a flow with an MCP Tools component configured to use a local stdio subprocess transport. This bypasses both the LANGFLOW_CUSTOM_COMPONENT_ADMIN_ONLY and LANGFLOW_BLOCK_CODE_INTERPRETER_COMPONENTS server-side controls intended to prevent exactly this class of access.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special characters in flow display names. The flaw enables code injection through the flow name field.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute flows and obtain sensitive information due to insufficient session expiration of API keys after user deactivation.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 — no vulnerability description was provided in the supplied source.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information from internal network resources due to improper validation of user-supplied URLs.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary Python code due to improper authorization of custom components in stored flows.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 contain an incomplete environment variable blocklist. A remote authenticated attacker could exploit this to execute arbitrary code.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to read arbitrary files due to improper access control.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper validation of user-controlled API endpoints.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 improperly validate command-line arguments in the MCP stdio server configuration. A remote authenticated attacker could execute arbitrary commands.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 perform an unguarded eval() call on attacker-controlled input. A remote authenticated attacker could execute arbitrary code.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 have an incomplete denylist in the security scanner. An authenticated attacker could execute arbitrary code.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 allow an attacker to submit custom component source code that bypasses the static security scanner via a crafted annotated class-body assignment resolving to a dangerous callable through alias tracking. A logic error means the resolved value is never checked against the dangerous callable blocklist.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow an authenticated attacker to access sensitive files belonging to other users due to improper access control in the File/Read File component. When executing flows through the /api/v1/run/advanced/{flow_id} endpoint, the application allows component inputs to reference storage paths using arbitrary user or flow identifiers without verifying ownership, enabling an attacker with low-privileged authenticated access to supply a crafted file path pointing to another user's storage namespace and read files uploaded by other users.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 contain a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. A remote authenticated attacker could exploit this to obtain sensitive information.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 have an improper authorization vulnerability. A remote authenticated attacker could obtain sensitive information and inject messages into workflow history.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 have a vulnerability due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory. A remote authenticated attacker could obtain sensitive information.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.2 have a directory traversal vulnerability. A remote attacker could send a specially crafted URL request containing 'dot dot' sequences to view arbitrary files on the system.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 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.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 allows an authenticated attacker to read arbitrary files from the server filesystem — including server secret material (secret_key, JWT signing keys, the application database, /proc/self/environ, and other tenants' upload directories) — by supplying absolute paths or traversal sequences in the files parameter of an authenticated build request. The file contents were embedded as text attachments in the language model prompt and transmitted to the configured model endpoint, resulting in confidential data exfiltration. This bypassed the LANGFLOW_RESTRICT_LOCAL_FILE_ACCESS=true containment boundary, which was enforced for other file-reading components but not for the Chat Input to Message attachment pipeline.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to server-side request forgery.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information from internal services due to a URL parser discrepancy.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 allow a remote authenticated attacker to delete arbitrary local files or directories due to improper pathname restriction.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 may allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to incomplete scrubbing of sensitive credential fields.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 may allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an authorization bypass in the flow build process.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 allow remote authenticated attackers to bypass localhost-only MCP configuration installation by spoofing X-Forwarded-For: 127.0.0.1 header, enabling arbitrary writes to IDE config files (~/.cursor/mcp.json, etc.).

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 could allow an authenticated attacker to write arbitrary files to the server due to improper input validation in the SaveToFileComponent. The application constructs local file paths using attacker-controlled input without sufficient sanitization when handling requests to the /api/v1/run/{flow_id} endpoint. An attacker with low-privileged authenticated access (such as a valid API key or user session) can supply crafted path values, including absolute paths or path traversal sequences, allowing arbitrary file writes to locations writable by the Langflow process. Successful exploitation may lead to unauthorized file creation or modification, potentially resulting in further compromise depending on the deployment environment.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 suffer from a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in the Playground chat interface.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute and read any user's private flow due to improper authorization.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information and inject unauthorized messages due to a namespace collision between user identifiers.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote attacker to read arbitrary files due to path traversal.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary flows and access sensitive information due to improper authentication.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of generation of code.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 is vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF). This may allow an authenticated attacker to send unauthorized requests from the system, potentially leading to network enumeration or facilitating other attacks.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 could allow a remote attacker to overwrite administrator email information and abuse the server as an outbound relay due to missing authentication for the registration endpoint.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the MemoryComponent that allows authenticated users to access chat history of other users via session_id collision. The retrieve_messages and store_message methods filter only on session_id without validating flow_id or user_id ownership, enabling cross-user information disclosure through multiple API endpoints.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote attacker to inject arbitrary code on the system due to improper control of user input code.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 use Python's non-cryptographic random module for generating Fernet encryption keys from user secrets under 32 characters. The deterministic Mersenne Twister PRNG produces identical keys for identical seeds, allowing attackers to reproduce encryption keys and decrypt stored API keys and authentication tokens.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 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.

IBM Langflow OSS installations versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 allow anyone on the internet to execute arbitrary code on the server without any credentials via 2 HTTP requests.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 is vulnerable to Path Traversal in the Knowledge Bases API (POST /api/v1/knowledge_bases). This occurs because user-supplied knowledge base names are used directly to create file paths without proper sanitization or containment checks. An authenticated attacker can exploit this flaw to create directories and write files anywhere on the server's filesystem.

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.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to code injection.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 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.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of module imports.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 does not properly validate ownership in the deprecated POST /api/v1/build/{flow_id}/vertices endpoint, allowing an authenticated user to inject arbitrary graph data into a shared cache for any flow. This may result in cross-user cache pollution, unauthorized workflow execution, or denial of service.

IBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the validate_model_provider_key() function for the Ollama provider. The function accepts a user-supplied OLLAMA_BASE_URL parameter and passes it directly to requests.get() without validation, scheme/host allowlisting, or filtering of private IP ranges.

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.