Skip to content

GHSA-3prp-9gf7-4rxx CVE-2026-41277

Flowise: Mass Assignment in DocumentStore Create Endpoint Leads to Cross-Workspace Object Takeover (IDOR)

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
3.11%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 87.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-284 Improper Access Control
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CWE-915 Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes
Fix
3.1.0
Upgrade flowise to this version or later

Description

Summary

A Mass Assignment vulnerability in the DocumentStore creation endpoint allows authenticated users to control the primary key (id) and internal state fields of DocumentStore entities.

Because the service uses repository.save() with a client-supplied primary key, the POST create endpoint behaves as an implicit UPSERT operation. This enables overwriting existing DocumentStore objects.

In multi-workspace or multi-tenant deployments, this can lead to cross-workspace object takeover and broken object-level authorization (IDOR), allowing an attacker to reassign or modify DocumentStore objects belonging to other workspaces.

Details

The DocumentStore entity defines a globally unique primary key:

@PrimaryGeneratedColumn('uuid')
id: string

The create logic is implemented as:

const documentStore = repo.create(newDocumentStore)
const dbResponse = await repo.save(documentStore)

Here is no DTO allowlist or field filtering before persistence. The entire request body is mapped directly to the entity. TypeORM save() behavior:

  1. If the primary key (id) exists → UPDATE
  2. If not → INSERT

Because id is accepted from the client, the create endpoint effectively functions as an UPSERT endpoint.

This allows an authenticated user to submit:

{
  "id": "<existing_store_id>",
  "name": "modified",
  "description": "modified",
  "status": "SYNC",
  "embeddingConfig": "...",
  "vectorStoreConfig": "...",
  "recordManagerConfig": "..."
}

If a DocumentStore with the supplied id already exists, save() performs an UPDATE rather than creating a new record.

Importantly:

The primary key is globally unique (uuid) It is not composite with workspaceId The create path does not enforce ownership validation before calling save() This introduces a broken object-level authorization risk.

If an attacker can obtain or enumerate a valid DocumentStore UUID belonging to another workspace, they can: Submit a POST create request with that UUID. Trigger an UPDATE on the existing record. Potentially overwrite fields including workspaceId, effectively reassigning the object to their own workspace.

Because the service layer does not verify that the existing record belongs to the caller’s workspace before updating, this may result in cross-workspace object takeover.

Additionally, several service functions retrieve DocumentStore entities by id without consistently scoping by workspaceId, increasing the risk of IDOR if controller-level protections are bypassed or misconfigured.

PoC

  1. Create a normal DocumentStore in Workspace A.
  2. Capture its id from the API response.
  3. From Workspace B (or another authenticated context), submit:
POST /api/v1/document-store
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "id": "<id_from_workspace_A>",
  "name": "hijacked",
  "description": "hijacked"
}

Because the service uses repository.save() with a client-supplied primary key:

  • The existing record is updated.
  • The object may become reassigned depending on how workspaceId is handled at controller level.
  • If workspaceId is overwritten during the create flow, the store is effectively migrated to the attacker’s workspace.
  • This demonstrates object takeover via UPSERT semantics on a create endpoint.

Impact

This vulnerability enables:

  • Mass Assignment on server-managed fields
  • Overwrite of existing objects via implicit UPSERT behavior
  • Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA)
  • Potential cross-workspace object takeover in multi-tenant deployments
  • In a SaaS or shared-workspace environment, an attacker who can obtain or guess a valid UUID may modify or reassign DocumentStore objects belonging to other tenants.

Because DocumentStore objects control embedding providers, vector store configuration, and record management logic, successful takeover can affect data indexing, retrieval, and AI workflow execution.

This represents a high-risk authorization flaw in multi-tenant environments.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
flowise
< 3.1.0
3.1.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

flowise npm → 3.1.0

npm
npm install flowise@3.1.0
yarn
yarn add flowise@3.1.0
pnpm
pnpm add flowise@3.1.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 8.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-284: Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

CWE-915: Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes

The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists. For applications written with Ruby on Rails, use the attr_accessible (allowlist) or attr_protected (denylist) macros in each class that may be used in mass assignment.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
  • Implementation: For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: Refactor the code so that object attributes or fields do not need to be dynamically identified, and only expose getter/setter functionality for the intended attributes.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-w7x8-q2gp-5cgg
Flowise Prompt Injection to RCE and SSRF via CSV/Airtable Agent Python Validator Bypass
Critical Also affects flowise
GHSA-9gvv-qjj3-2p6g
Flowise NodeVM sandbox escape via puppeteer allowlist - authenticated RCE and arbitrary file read via Chromium
High Also affects flowise
GHSA-qgvm-j2hm-6m38
Flowise: Unauthenticated OAuth2 token refresh endpoint returns access tokens — enables token theft for any connected service
Critical Also affects flowise
GHSA-5xvg-pmgg-3mxr
Flowise: CSV Agent Prompt Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Critical Also affects flowise
GHSA-gmmw-qg98-6j6p
Flowise: Broken Access Control in Stripe Subscription Endpoints Allows Cross-Tenant Billing Manipulation
High Also affects flowise
GHSA-8gj2-2cvc-6xx7
Flowise: Unauthenticated Credential Abuse via Text-to-Speech Endpoint Allows Unauthorized Use of Private Chatflow TTS Credentials
Medium Also affects flowise
GHSA-fm2f-4339-4p2f
Flowise: Missing Authorization on Execution Update Endpoint
Medium Also affects flowise
GHSA-wch5-xp77-fxg4
Flowise: Cross-Workspace OAuth2 Credential Metadata Leak
High Also affects flowise
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor