| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Langflow is a tool for building and deploying AI-powered agents and workflows. Before Langflow 1.10.3, the MCP stdio transport launched whatever command / args a user put in an MCP server configuration, with no allowlist and (before 1.10.3) wrapped in bash -c "exec {command} ...". Any user able to reach the MCP server settings ("Settings → MCP Servers → Add MCP Server", POST/PATCH /api/v2/mcp/servers/{server_name}) or to build a flow with the MCP Tools component could add a "server" whose command is an arbitrary OS command (touch, rm -rf, a reverse shell, ...). The command runs on the Langflow host as the Langflow process user as soon as Langflow tries to connect to the server (listing servers, loading tools, running the flow) — even when the UI then reports that the stdio server failed to start. With the default LANGFLOW_AUTO_LOGIN=true, GET /api/v1/auto_login hands out a token without credentials, so on an exposed instance running the default configuration this is reachable without an account. AUTO_LOGIN is documented as a development-only setting; with it disabled, any authenticated (non-admin) user can exploit it. This issue is fixed in Langflow 1.10.3, langflow-base 0.10.3, and lfx 1.10.3. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper access control. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper authorization. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper access control. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in code. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an expected dependency confusion. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow an attacker with access to the server secret and Redis write access to submit a malicious serialized cache value. When the value was retrieved, deserialization could have executed attacker-controlled code with the privileges of the service process. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of generation of code. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to insufficiently protected credentials. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper input validation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection'), aka improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an incomplete blocklist in the code security scanner. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection') related to improper input validation. |
