Skip to content

GHSA-f43r-cc68-gpx4 CVE-2025-68478 PYSEC-2025-125

External Control of File Name or Path in Langflow

High PyPI
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
5.79%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 93.11% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-610 Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere
CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
Fix
1.7.1
Upgrade langflow to this version or later

Description

Vulnerability Overview

If an arbitrary path is specified in the request body's fs_path, the server serializes the Flow object into JSON and creates/overwrites a file at that path. There is no path restriction, normalization, or allowed directory enforcement, so absolute paths (e.g., /etc/poc.txt) are interpreted as is.

Vulnerable Code

  1. It receives the request body (flow), updates the DB, and then passes it to the file-writing sink.

    https://github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/blob/ac6e2d2eabeee28085f2739d79f7ce4205ca082c/src/backend/base/langflow/api/v1/flows.py#L154-L168

    @router.post("/", response_model=FlowRead, status_code=201)
    async def create_flow(
        *,
        session: DbSession,
        flow: FlowCreate,
        current_user: CurrentActiveUser,
    ):
        try:
            db_flow = await _new_flow(session=session, flow=flow, user_id=current_user.id)
            await session.commit()
            await session.refresh(db_flow)
    
            await _save_flow_to_fs(db_flow)
    
        except Exception as e:
    
  2. Applies authentication dependency (requires API Key/JWT) when accessing the endpoint.

    https://github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/blob/ac6e2d2eabeee28085f2739d79f7ce4205ca082c/src/backend/base/langflow/api/utils/core.py#L36-L38

    CurrentActiveUser = Annotated[User, Depends(get_current_active_user)]
    CurrentActiveMCPUser = Annotated[User, Depends(get_current_active_user_mcp)]
    DbSession = Annotated[AsyncSession, Depends(get_session)]
    
  3. The client can directly specify the save path, including fs_path.

    https://github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/blob/ac6e2d2eabeee28085f2739d79f7ce4205ca082c/src/backend/base/langflow/api/v1/flows.py#L66-L70

    ):
        try:
            await _verify_fs_path(flow.fs_path)
    
            """Create a new flow."""
    
  4. It attempts to create the file (or the file, in the case of a path without a parent) directly without path validation.

    https://github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/blob/ac6e2d2eabeee28085f2739d79f7ce4205ca082c/src/backend/base/langflow/api/v1/flows.py#L45-L49

    async def _verify_fs_path(path: str | None) -> None:
        if path:
            path_ = Path(path)
            if not await path_.exists():
                await path_.touch()
    
  5. Serializes the Flow object to JSON and writes it to the specified path in "w" mode (overwriting).

    https://github.com/langflow-ai/langflow/blob/ac6e2d2eabeee28085f2739d79f7ce4205ca082c/src/backend/base/langflow/api/v1/flows.py#L52-L58

    async def _save_flow_to_fs(flow: Flow) -> None:
        if flow.fs_path:
            async with async_open(flow.fs_path, "w") as f:
                try:
                    await f.write(flow.model_dump_json())
                except OSError:
                    await logger.aexception("Failed to write flow %s to path %s", flow.name, flow.fs_path)
    

PoC Description

When an authenticated user passes an arbitrary path in fs_path, the Flow JSON is written to that path. Since /tmp is usually writable, it is easy to reproduce. In a production environment, writing to system-protected directories may fail depending on permissions.

PoC

  • Before Exploit

    <img width="1918" height="658" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fe3c2306-091d-4cb0-b4dc-c7fb63c03d8d" />

  • After Exploit

    curl -sS -X POST "http://localhost:7860/api/v1/flows/" \
      -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
      -H "x-api-key: sk-8Kyzf9IQ-UEJ_OtSTaJq4eniMT9_JKgZ7__q8PNkoxc" \
      -d '{"name":"poc-etc","data":{"nodes":[],"edges":[]},"fs_path":"/tmp/POC.txt"}'
    

    <img width="1918" height="742" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/cc0b0c96-1c2d-4d56-b558-5ba97e0ec174" />

Impact

  • Authenticated Arbitrary File Write (within server permission scope): Risk of corrupting configuration/log/task files, disrupting application behavior, and tampering with files read by other components.
  • Both absolute and relative paths are allowed, enabling base directory traversal. The risk of overwriting system files increases in environments with root privileges or weak mount/permission settings.
  • The file content is limited to Flow JSON, but the impact is severe if the target file is parsed by a JSON parser or is subject to subsequent processing.
  • In production environments, it is essential to enforce a save root, normalize paths, block symlink traversal, and minimize permissions.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
langflow
< 1.7.1
1.7.1
langflow
< 1.7.0
1.7.0

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 → 1.7.1

pip
pip install --upgrade "langflow>=1.7.1"
poetry
poetry add "langflow>=1.7.1"
uv
uv add "langflow>=1.7.1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

Weakness

CWE-610: Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere

The product uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.

CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path

The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: 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 all access to files within a particular directory. 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.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
  • Implementation: Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59).
  • Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
  • Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
  • Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
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