CVE-2026-17625: Langflow — HIGH

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, and 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to improper neutralization of special elements...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package	Ecosystem	Vulnerable Range	Patched
Langflow	pip	—	No patch
152.7K Pushed 3d ago 26% patched ~70d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use Langflow? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1

7.2 / 10

EPSS

N/A

Exploitation Status

No known exploitation

Sophistication

N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV Network

AC Low

PR High

UI None

S Unchanged

C High

I High

A High

What should I do?

No patch available

Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-17625?

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, and 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command.

Is CVE-2026-17625 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-17625 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-17625?

No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-17625?

CVE-2026-17625 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.2 (HIGH).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, and 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

CWE-78 — Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'): The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

[Architecture and Design] If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
[Architecture and Design, Operation] Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.