GHSA-8c4j-f57c-35cf CVE-2026-34046 PYSEC-2026-2567 PYSEC-2026-2570
Langflow: Authenticated Users Can Read, Modify, and Delete Any Flow via Missing Ownership Check
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.48%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.19% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Vulnerability
IDOR in GET/PATCH/DELETE /api/v1/flow/{flow_id}
The _read_flow helper in src/backend/base/langflow/api/v1/flows.py branched on the AUTO_LOGIN setting to decide whether to filter by user_id. When AUTO_LOGIN was False (i.e., authentication was enabled), neither branch enforced an ownership check — the query returned any flow matching the given UUID regardless of who owned it.
This exposed any authenticated user to:
- Read any other user's flow, including embedded plaintext API keys
- Modify the logic of another user's AI agents
- Delete flows belonging to other users
The vulnerability was introduced by the conditional logic that was meant to accommodate public/example flows (those with user_id = NULL) under auto-login mode, but inadvertently left the authenticated path without an ownership filter.
Fix (PR #8956)
The fix removes the AUTO_LOGIN conditional entirely and unconditionally scopes the query to the requesting user:
- auth_settings = settings_service.auth_settings
- stmt = select(Flow).where(Flow.id == flow_id)
- if auth_settings.AUTO_LOGIN:
- stmt = stmt.where(
- (Flow.user_id == user_id) | (Flow.user_id == None) # noqa: E711
- )
+ stmt = select(Flow).where(Flow.id == flow_id).where(Flow.user_id == user_id)
All three operations — read, update, and delete — route through _read_flow, so the single change covers the full attack surface. A cross-user isolation test (test_read_flows_user_isolation) was added to prevent regression.
Acknowledgements
Langflow thanks the security researcher who responsibly disclosed this vulnerability:
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| langflow | < 1.5.1 |
1.5.1 |
| langflow-base | < 0.5.1 |
0.5.1 |
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.
langflow PyPI → 1.5.1
- pip
pip install --upgrade "langflow>=1.5.1"- poetry
poetry add "langflow>=1.5.1"- uv
uv add "langflow>=1.5.1"
langflow-base PyPI → 0.5.1
- pip
pip install --upgrade "langflow-base>=0.5.1"- poetry
poetry add "langflow-base>=0.5.1"- uv
uv add "langflow-base>=0.5.1"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- 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-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-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-qrpv-q767-xqq2 Langflow: IDOR Vulnerability in `/api/v1/responses` Endpoint Allows Authenticated Attackers to Access Another User's Flow | High Known exploited | Also affects langflow |
| GHSA-vwmf-pq79-vjvx Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution in Langflow via Public Flow Build Endpoint | Critical Known exploited | Also affects langflow |
| GHSA-g22f-v6f7-2hrh Langflow affected by Remote Code Execution via validate_code() exec() | High Known exploited | Also affects langflow |
| GHSA-577h-p2hh-v4mv Langflow CORS misconfiguration enables Account Takeover and RCE | Critical Known exploited | Also affects langflow |
| GHSA-rvqx-wpfh-mfx7 Langflow Unauth RCE | Critical Known exploited | Also affects langflow |
| GHSA-j8f7-x8jm-wmm4 Langflow: SSRF in URL-taking components (protection disabled by default / warn-only, not applied to RSS, SearXNG, Web Search, Home Assistant, Glean, Docling) | Medium | Also affects langflow |
| GHSA-4f6c-2vvp-gw82 Langflow: IP Spoofing Bypass via `X-Forwarded-For` Allowing Remote Configuration Write | High | Also affects langflow |
| GHSA-4hmc-cfm3-w43c Langflow has Authenticated Cross-Project File Disclosure via Unscoped MCP Resource Handlers | High | Also affects langflow |
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