CVE-2026-9077
HIGHIBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 Langflow allows remote authenticated attackers to bypass localhost-only restrictions and write arbitrary MCP server configurations to IDE configuration files on the host...
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-2026-9077?
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 Langflow allows remote authenticated attackers to bypass localhost-only restrictions and write arbitrary MCP server configurations to IDE configuration files on the host system.
Is CVE-2026-9077 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-9077 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-9077?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-9077?
CVE-2026-9077 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.5 (HIGH).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 Langflow allows remote authenticated attackers to bypass localhost-only restrictions and write arbitrary MCP server configurations to IDE configuration files on the host system.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-807 Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
Primary
CWE-807 Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision CWE-807 — Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision: The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
- [Architecture and Design] Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only. Ensure that the system definitively and unambiguously keeps track of its own state and user state and has rules defined for legitimate state transitions. Do not allow any application user to affect state directly in any way other than through legitimate actions leading to state transitions. If information must be stored on the client, do not do so without encryption and integrity checking, or otherwise having a mechanism on the server side to catch tampering. Use a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm, such as Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [REF-529]. Apply this against the state or sensitive data that has to be exposed, which can guarantee the integrity of the data - i.e., that the data has not been modified. Ensure that a strong hash function is used (CWE-328).
- [Architecture and Design] Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. With a stateless protocol such as HTTP, use a framework that maintains the state for you. Examples include ASP.NET View State [REF-756] and the OWASP ESAPI Session Management feature [REF-45]. Be careful of language features that provide state support, since these might be provided as a convenience to the programmer and may not be considering security.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N