GHSA-5xvg-pmgg-3mxr CVE-2026-70477
Flowise: CSV Agent Prompt Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.81%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 57.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
-- ABSTRACT -------------------------------------
Trend Micro's Zero Day Initiative has identified a vulnerability affecting the following products: Flowise - Flowise
-- VULNERABILITY DETAILS ------------------------
- Version tested: 3.1.1
- Installer file: https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise (npm install flowise@3.1.1)
- Platform tested: Ubuntu 25.10
A prompt injection sent to a chatflow using a CSV Agent node can cause the LLM to respond with a malicious Python script that bypasses the blocklist validator and executes in an unsandboxed pyodide environment. An attacker can leverage this to execute arbitrary code in the context of the user running the server.
This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Flowise. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the run method of the CSV_Agents class. The issue results from insufficient input sanitization when using untrusted data to construct an LLM prompt. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account.
Analysis
When a user makes a query against a chatflow using the CSV Agent node, the run method of the CSV_Agents class is called. This method reads the CSV file, loads a pyodide environment, and uses pandas to extract column names and data types into a dictionary. It then constructs a system prompt using that dictionary and the user's input, and sends this prompt to a configured LLM. The LLM response is stored in a variable named pythonCode. The method then attempts to validate this value using validatePythonCodeForDataFrame from packages/components/src/pythonCodeValidator.ts before evaluating it in pyodide.
The validator relies on a static regex blocklist. It can be bypassed using obfuscation techniques including string concatenation to reconstruct forbidden identifiers, chr() encoding, aliasing of dangerous builtins, __getattribute__ with concatenated attribute names, frame object inspection, MRO traversal, df.query() expression evaluation, and decorator syntax to invoke exec indirectly. Furthermore, pyodide is not sandboxed from the host operating system, so any Python code that passes the validator is executed with full access to OS interfaces.
From packages/components/nodes/agents/CSVAgent/CSVAgent.ts:
let pythonCode = ''
if (dataframeColDict) {
const chain = new LLMChain({
llm: model,
prompt: PromptTemplate.fromTemplate(systemPrompt),
verbose: process.env.DEBUG === 'true' ? true : false
})
const inputs = {
dict: dataframeColDict,
question: input // user-controlled input substituted into prompt
}
const res = await chain.call(inputs, [loggerHandler, ...callbacks])
pythonCode = res?.text // LLM response assigned to pythonCode
pythonCode = pythonCode.replace(/^```[a-z]+\n|\n```$/gm, '')
}
let finalResult = ''
if (pythonCode) {
const validation = validatePythonCodeForDataFrame(pythonCode) // blocklist validation applied
if (!validation.valid) {
throw new Error(
`Generated code was rejected for security reasons (${
validation.reason ?? 'unsafe construct'
}). Please rephrase your question to use only pandas DataFrame operations.`
)
}
try {
const code = `import pandas as pd\nimport numpy as np\n${pythonCode}`
finalResult = await pyodide.runPythonAsync(code) // executed in unsandboxed pyodide
} catch (error) {
throw new Error(`Sorry, I'm unable to find answer for question: "${input}" using following code: "${pythonCode}"`)
}
}
An unauthenticated attacker with the ability to send prompts to a chatflow using the CSV Agent node may use prompt injection to cause the LLM to respond with a malicious Python script. An authenticated attacker may instead configure a chatflow that points to an attacker-controlled server, which responds to LLM requests with an attacker-controlled Python payload, bypassing the LLM entirely.
Eight bypass variants were demonstrated against the validator:
| Variant | Technique | Bypasses |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | @exec decorator with string-concatenated __import__ |
/\bexec\s*\(/, /\b__import__\s*\(/ |
| 1 | eval aliased to a variable, payload chr()-encoded |
/\beval\s*\(/, /\bimport\b/ |
| 2 | df.query() with chr()-encoded @__builtins__.__import__ |
/\b__builtins__\b/, /\b__import__\s*\(/ |
| 3 | MRO traversal + __getattribute__ + __subclasses__ -> BuiltinImporter.load_module |
/\b__class__\b/, /\b__subclasses__\s*\(/, /\b__mro__\b/ |
| 4 | Generator frame inspection via gi_frame.f_globals['__loader__'] |
/\b__loader__\b/, /\b__globals__\b/ |
| 5 | Exception traceback frame walk to f_builtins['__import__'] |
/\b__globals__\b/, /\b__import__\s*\(/ |
| 6 | __build_class__.__self__.__getattribute__('__import__') |
/\b__import__\s*\(/ |
| 7 | vars aliased to a variable, __builtins__ accessed via dict key |
/\bvars\s*\(/, /\b__builtins__\b/, /\b__import__\s*\(/ |
Repro
The proof of concept (poc.py) has three modes of operation:
mode = "server": Starts a malicious server that responds to "/api/chat" requests with a JSON object containing an LLM response with the selected attack payload.
mode = "chatflow": Authenticates to the Flowise server, creates a chatflow with a CSV Agent node configured to use a ChatOllama model pointed at the malicious server, and triggers a prediction to execute the payload.
mode = "prompt_injection": Sends a prompt injection payload directly to an existing chatflow's prediction endpoint. Due to the nature of LLM responses, it may take multiple attempts or require a different injection technique depending on the model used.
python3 poc.py --mode [server OR chatflow OR prompt_injection] [--user <USER> --passwd <PASSWORD> --host <HOST> --r_host <R_HOST> --r_port <R_PORT> --l_port <L_PORT> --port <PORT> --cmd <CMD> --attack <ATTACK> --chatflow_id <CHAT_ID>]
-- CREDIT --------------------------------------- This vulnerability was discovered by: Dre Cura (@dre_cura) of TrendAI Research
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| flowise | < 3.1.3 |
3.1.3 |
| flowise-components | < 3.1.3 |
3.1.3 |
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 → 3.1.3
- npm
npm install flowise@3.1.3- yarn
yarn add flowise@3.1.3- pnpm
pnpm add flowise@3.1.3
flowise-components npm → 3.1.3
- npm
npm install flowise-components@3.1.3- yarn
yarn add flowise-components@3.1.3- pnpm
pnpm add flowise-components@3.1.3
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- High
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- High
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
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-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 |
| GHSA-rwrp-9823-p2xq Flowise: Incomplete Credential Redaction Exposes Secrets via API | 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