CVE-2026-110185: Bit Flows: AI Agent Automation & Integrations for Forms, CRM, eCommerce, Google Sheets, and More <= 1.31.0 - Unauthenticated Local File Inclusion via 'webhook' and 'body' Parameters
The Bit Flows: AI Agent Automation & Integrations for Forms, CRM, eCommerce, Google Sheets, and More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Local File Inclusion in all versions up to, and including, 1.31.0 via the 'image (any body field referenced by the ImageHelper node's mix tag)' parameter parameter. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to include and execute arbitrary .php files on the server, allowing the execution of any PHP code in those files. This can be used to bypass access controls, obtain sensitive data, or achieve code execution in cases where .php file types can be uploaded and included. Exploitation requires that an administrator has built a webhook-triggered flow that pipes a webhook body field into an ImageHelper imageToBase64 node, and that the webhook remains in its default configuration (no bearer secret enforced, no IP allowlist set) — a legitimate and documented use case.
Affected Software
Event History
Frequently Asked Questions
Which deployments are realistically exposed to unauthenticated exploitation?
Exposure requires an administrator-created flow triggered by a webhook that passes a webhook body field to an ImageHelper imageToBase64 node. The webhook must also retain its default access settings: no bearer secret and no IP allowlist.
What must an attacker be able to do to exploit this issue?
An attacker must be able to send requests to the affected webhook and control the relevant webhook body field used as the ImageHelper image input. Successful exploitation can include and execute arbitrary PHP files available on the server.
Are default plugin installations affected without additional setup?
The issue depends on a specific webhook-triggered flow configuration, so a plugin installation is not described as exploitable solely because it is installed. However, the required webhook settings are the default configuration, and the affected flow pattern is described as legitimate and documented.
What can be done if updating is not immediately possible?
Restrict access to affected webhooks by enforcing a bearer secret and setting an IP allowlist. Also identify flows that pipe webhook body fields into ImageHelper imageToBase64 nodes and prevent untrusted input from reaching that node.
How can administrators determine whether they are affected?
Review Bit Flows configurations for webhook-triggered flows containing an ImageHelper imageToBase64 node whose image value references a webhook body field. Check whether each associated webhook has neither a bearer secret nor an IP allowlist configured.