GHSA-5wxp-qjgq-fx6m CVE-2026-42863
FlowiseAI has Mass Assignment in Chatflow Update Endpoint that Allows Cross-Workspace AgentFlow Reassignment
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.32%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 24.58% 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
3.1.2- Upgrade flowise to this version or later
Description
Summary
A Mass Assignment vulnerability exists in the chatflow update endpoint of FlowiseAI.
The endpoint allows clients to modify server-controlled properties such as deployed, isPublic, workspaceId, createdDate, and updatedDate when updating a chatflow object.
Due to missing server-side validation and authorization checks, an authenticated user can manipulate internal attributes of a chatflow and reassign it to another workspace. This allows cross-workspace resource reassignment and unauthorized modification of deployment and visibility settings.
Details
The endpoint responsible for updating chatflows:
PUT /api/v1/chatflows/{chatflowId}
accepts a JSON request body containing the chatflow configuration (flowData) along with other metadata fields.
However, the server does not restrict which properties may be modified by the client. As a result, user-controlled request bodies can include additional fields that should normally be controlled only by the backend.
Examples of server-controlled fields that can be manipulated include:
- deployed
- isPublic
- workspaceId
- createdDate
- updatedDate
- category
- type
These fields appear to be directly mapped to the underlying database entity when processing the update request, suggesting that the server performs a direct merge of the request body into the chatflow model without applying a strict DTO whitelist or authorization checks.
For example, modifying the request body with:
{
"deployed": true,
"isPublic": true,
"createdDate": "1999-03-06T10:59:32.000Z",
"updatedDate": "1999-03-06T13:21:34.000Z",
"workspaceId": "11111111-2222-3333-4444-555555555555"
}
results in the server accepting and persisting these values.
In testing, a second workspace was created in the database and the workspaceId field was successfully modified through the API request. The chatflow was reassigned to the attacker-controlled workspace, confirming that the application does not enforce workspace ownership validation.
PoC
Authenticate to the Flowise interface.
Capture the request used to update a chatflow:
PUT /api/v1/chatflows/<CHATFLOW_ID>
Content-Type: application/json
Modify the request body by injecting additional fields:
{
"name": "test-flow",
"flowData": "{...}",
"deployed": true,
"isPublic": true,
"workspaceId": "11111111-2222-3333-4444-555555555555"
}
Send the request.
Observe that the response returns the manipulated values:
{
"deployed": true,
"isPublic": true,
"workspaceId": "11111111-2222-3333-4444-555555555555"
}
Verify in the database that the chatflow has been reassigned:
SELECT id, workspaceId FROM chat_flow WHERE id='<CHATFLOW_ID>';
The workspaceId value reflects the attacker-supplied workspace.
Impact
This vulnerability allows authenticated users to manipulate server-controlled attributes of chatflows.
Confirmed impacts include:
- Unauthorized modification of chatflow visibility (isPublic)
- Unauthorized deployment state changes (deployed)
- Cross-workspace reassignment of chatflows (workspaceId)
- Unauthorized modification of metadata (createdDate, updatedDate)
In multi-tenant environments, this allows an attacker to move chatflows between workspaces without authorization, breaking tenant isolation boundaries.
This may enable:
- Cross-workspace workflow takeover
- Unauthorized exposure of private workflows
- Manipulation of deployed agent workflows
The issue stems from missing authorization checks and improper handling of client-controlled input in the chatflow update endpoint.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| flowise | < 3.1.2 |
3.1.2 |
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 → 3.1.2
- npm
npm install flowise@3.1.2- yarn
yarn add flowise@3.1.2- pnpm
pnpm add flowise@3.1.2
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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