CVE-2026-19295
CRITICALIBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 allows an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary operating system commands in the server process by saving a flow with a crafted type field value and triggering a build of a wrapper flow that references it. This allowed privilege escalation from...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
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-2026-19295?
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 allows an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary operating system commands in the server process by saving a flow with a crafted type field value and triggering a build of a wrapper flow that references it. This allowed privilege escalation from "authenticated flow user" to arbitrary OS-level command execution under the server process identity, bypassing the LANGFLOW_ALLOW_CUSTOM_COMPONENTS=false policy control.
Is CVE-2026-19295 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-19295 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-19295?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-19295?
CVE-2026-19295 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.9 (CRITICAL).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 allows an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary operating system commands in the server process by saving a flow with a crafted type field value and triggering a build of a wrapper flow that references it. This allowed privilege escalation from "authenticated flow user" to arbitrary OS-level command execution under the server process identity, bypassing the LANGFLOW_ALLOW_CUSTOM_COMPONENTS=false policy control.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-95 Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')
Primary
CWE-95 Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection') CWE-95 — Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection'): The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. "eval").
- [Architecture and Design, Implementation] If possible, refactor your code so that it does not need to use eval() at all.
- [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
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H