CVE-2026-110244: Langflow: path traversal exposes sensitive files

MEDIUM

Published October 29, 2026

CISO Take

CVE-2026-110244 is a path traversal flaw in IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.4 that lets any authenticated user read files outside the intended directory, with a CVSS of 8.8 (high) reflecting potential confidentiality, integrity and availability impact. Langflow instances typically hold LLM provider API keys, vector database credentials and flow definitions, so file disclosure can cascade into compromise of the wider AI stack. There is no CISA KEV listing, no public exploit, no Nuclei template and no EPSS score yet, so exploitation is not currently observed, but low-complexity network exploitation by any low-privileged account makes it an easy target once details circulate. Upgrade beyond 1.12.4 per the IBM advisory (node 7293016), restrict Langflow to trusted networks, and rotate any secrets stored on hosts running affected versions if untrusted users have accounts.

Sources:NVDibm.comATLAS

What is the risk?

High. The attack is network-reachable, low complexity, needs only low privileges and no user interaction. The CVSS vector rates confidentiality, integrity and availability impact as high, although the vendor description mentions only information disclosure. No active exploitation, public exploit or EPSS data exists as of 2026-10-29, which lowers short-term urgency. Exposure is greatest for multi-user or internet-facing Langflow deployments that issue accounts to untrusted users. Confidence in the exploitation details is MEDIUM because the advisory is brief and the affected component is not specified.

How does the attack unfold?

Initial Access

Attacker authenticates to Langflow with a low-privilege account obtained via open registration or stolen credentials.

AML.T0049

Exploitation

Attacker sends requests with traversal sequences to a file-handling endpoint to escape the restricted directory.

AML.T0037

Credential Access

Attacker reads .env and configuration files containing LLM API keys and database credentials.

AML.T0055

Impact

Stolen secrets enable data theft from connected stores, inference cost abuse and lateral movement into other systems.

Initial Access

Attacker authenticates to Langflow with a low-privilege account obtained via open registration or stolen credentials.

AML.T0049

Exploitation

Attacker sends requests with traversal sequences to a file-handling endpoint to escape the restricted directory.

AML.T0037

Credential Access

Attacker reads .env and configuration files containing LLM API keys and database credentials.

AML.T0055

Impact

Stolen secrets enable data theft from connected stores, inference cost abuse and lateral movement into other systems.

What systems are affected?

Package	Ecosystem	Vulnerable Range	Patched
Langflow	pip	—	No patch
156.0KPushed 6d ago18% patched~66d to patchFull package profile →

Do you use Langflow? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1

6.5 / 10

EPSS

0.6%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Higher than 51% of all CVEs

Source: EPSS v3 — FIRST.org

Exploitation Status

No known exploitation

Sophistication

Trivial

What is the attack surface?

AVNetwork

ACLow

PRLow

UINone

SUnchanged

CHigh

INone

ANone

What should I do?

5 steps

Upgrade Langflow OSS to a fixed release newer than 1.12.4 as described in the IBM advisory (https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7293016).
Until patched, limit Langflow access to trusted users and networks via VPN or an authenticating reverse proxy, and disable open self-registration.
Run Langflow as a non-root user in a container with a minimal filesystem and no host secrets mounted.
Rotate LLM API keys, database passwords and other secrets accessible to the Langflow process if untrusted accounts existed.
Detection: review web and application logs for path parameters containing ../, encoded variants (%2e%2e%2f) or absolute paths on file, upload and flow endpoints, and alert on unexpected reads of .env, /etc/passwd or config files.

How is it classified?

Data ExtractionData LeakageFrameworkRAGAML.T0037- Data from Local System AML.T0049- Exploit Public-Facing Application AML.T0055- Unsecured Credentials

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

This CVE is relevant to:

EU AI Act

Art. 15-Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity

ISO 42001

A.6.2.6-AI system operation and monitoring

NIST AI RMF

MANAGE 2.3-Response to previously unknown risks

OWASP LLM Top 10

LLM02-Sensitive Information DisclosureLLM03-Supply Chain

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-110244?

Is CVE-2026-110244 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-110244 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-110244?

1. Upgrade Langflow OSS to a fixed release newer than 1.12.4 as described in the IBM advisory (https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7293016). 2. Until patched, limit Langflow access to trusted users and networks via VPN or an authenticating reverse proxy, and disable open self-registration. 3. Run Langflow as a non-root user in a container with a minimal filesystem and no host secrets mounted. 4. Rotate LLM API keys, database passwords and other secrets accessible to the Langflow process if untrusted accounts existed. 5. Detection: review web and application logs for path parameters containing ../, encoded variants (%2e%2e%2f) or absolute paths on file, upload and flow endpoints, and alert on unexpected reads of .env, /etc/passwd or config files.

What systems are affected by CVE-2026-110244?

This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: Agent frameworks, RAG pipelines, LLM workflow orchestration, Low-code AI application builders.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-110244?

CVE-2026-110244 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.5 (MEDIUM). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.65%.

What is the AI security impact?

Affected AI Architectures

Agent frameworksRAG pipelinesLLM workflow orchestrationLow-code AI application builders

MITRE ATLAS Techniques

AML.T0037Data from Local System

AML.T0049Exploit Public-Facing Application

AML.T0055Unsecured Credentials

Compliance Controls Affected

EU AI Act: Art. 15

ISO 42001: A.6.2.6

NIST AI RMF: MANAGE 2.3

OWASP LLM Top 10: LLM02, LLM03

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.4 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory.

Exploitation Scenario

An attacker obtains a low-privilege Langflow account through open registration, a phished credential or a compromised API key. They send requests to a file-handling endpoint using traversal sequences such as ../../ to escape the restricted directory and retrieve the .env file and the Langflow configuration. With the extracted OpenAI or Anthropic API keys and vector database credentials, they query the connected data stores to harvest proprietary documents, run costly inference on the victim's account, and pivot to other systems that share those secrets.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')Primary CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

CWE-22 — Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'): The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

[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, denylis
[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.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.