GHSA-9fpm-3445-2vx4 CVE-2026-7700 PYSEC-2026-4232
Langflow: Prompt injection in Langflow Smart Transform can lead to code execution
- Severity
- 2.1 / 10
- Low · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.31%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 24.35% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
1.10.3- Upgrade langflow to this version or later
Description
Summary
Langflow versions 1.3.0 through 1.10.2 contain a code-injection vulnerability in the Smart Transform (LambdaFilterComponent) component.
Smart Transform places flow-author instructions and a preview of its input data into a prompt asking an LLM to generate a Python lambda. It then extracts a one-line lambda from the model response, applies only syntactic format checks, evaluates it with Python's full builtins, and invokes the resulting function inside the Langflow process.
A malicious flow author can exploit this directly through the Instructions field. In deployments where an exposed flow passes attacker-controlled content into Smart Transform, an attacker may also exploit it indirectly through prompt injection, subject to the configured model following the injected instruction.
Vulnerability details
Vulnerable Code Location: src/lfx/src/lfx/components/llm_operations/lambda_filter.py (line 242 in v1.10.2)
def _validate_lambda(self, lambda_text: str) -> bool:
"""Validate the provided lambda function text."""
return lambda_text.strip().startswith("lambda") and ":" in lambda_text
# ...
return eval(lambda_text) # noqa: S307
For example, an attacker can attempt to make the model return:
lambda x: __import__("os").system("id")
This expression satisfies the vulnerable format checks. eval() creates the lambda with access to Python's default builtins, and the subsequent fn(data) invocation (in _execute_lambda) executes the command.
Successful exploitation allows code execution with the privileges of the Langflow service process. This can expose or modify credentials, files, application data, and network resources accessible to that process, and may affect other tenants in shared deployments.
PoC
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/13c48fe1-7225-4e0d-9687-2d2df1e87f0e
Fix
The reported path was addressed by validating the generated code's AST and evaluating it with a restricted builtins mapping.
The mainline fix is in PR #13530 (1641b28f) and shipped in Langflow 1.11.0. The 1.10.3 backport is in PR #14071 (94859df3). Users should upgrade to Langflow 1.10.3 or later.
Workarounds
Until an upgrade is possible:
- Remove Smart Transform from runnable flows.
- Restrict flow creation, editing, and execution to trusted users.
- Do not route untrusted or externally controlled data through Smart Transform.
- Limit the Langflow process's filesystem, network, and credential access.
Credit
- Peyton Kennedy (p80n-sec) of Endor Labs — reporter (original finder)
- SZXSec — reporter (duplicate report)
- cyjhhh — reporter (duplicate report)
- 0gur1 — reporter (duplicate report)
- ajm4n — reporter (duplicate report, Finding 1 of a multi-finding submission)
- andifilhohub — analyst
- Jordan Frazier (jordanrfrazier) — remediation developer
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| langflow | >= 1.3.0, < 1.10.3 |
1.10.3 |
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.
langflow PyPI → 1.10.3
- pip
pip install --upgrade "langflow>=1.10.3"- poetry
poetry add "langflow>=1.10.3"- uv
uv add "langflow>=1.10.3"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 2.1
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Proof of concept
- Scope
- X
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-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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/security/advisories/GHSA-9fpm-3445-2vx4
- github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/pull/13530
- github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/commit/1641b28f33e2c47b9a0c6855922d44d1b8418b9d
- github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/commit/94859df33acd70b2a1f816e26d68f5e89a7e5639
- github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/releases/tag/v1.10.3
- vuldb.com/submit/804305
- vuldb.com/vuln/360869
- yuque.com/mengnanbulalei/ognlsk/hte2a98ro5gf8tp9
- github.com/langflow-ai/langflow
- vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-7700
- vuldb.com/vuln/360869/cti
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