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 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 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 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 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 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.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information or inject malicious data due to improper access control in the vertex result caching subsystem.
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, resulting in a sandbox escape.
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 code due to improper access control.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information from internal services due to a URL parser discrepancy.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to server-side request forgery.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 allows an authenticated non-administrative user could execute arbitrary operating system commands on the server at the privilege level of the application process by constructing a flow with an MCP Tools component configured to use a local stdio subprocess transport. This bypasses both the LANGFLOWCUSTOMCOMPONENTADMINONLY and LANGFLOWBLOCKCODEINTERPRETERCOMPONENTS server-side controls intended to prevent exactly this class of access. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary command execution, sensitive data exposure (including credentials from the process environment), file system modification, and lateral movement to services reachable from the server.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special characters in flow display names.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute flows and obtain sensitive information due to insufficient session expiration of API keys after user deactivation.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information from internal network resources due to improper validation of user-supplied URLs.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary Python code due to improper authorization of custom components in stored flows.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an incomplete environment variable blocklist.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to improper validation of command-line arguments in the MCP stdio server configuration.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an unguarded eval() call on attacker-controlled input.
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an incomplete denylist in the security scanner.
An attacker who could submit custom component source code could bypass the static security scanner by crafting an annotated class-body assignment that resolved to a dangerous callable through alias tracking; the resolved value was never checked against the dangerous callable blocklist due to the logic error. If the crafted component reached the runtime execution path, the attacker could cause arbitrary operating system commands to execute on the server in-process, with the privileges of the running service.