CVE-2026-93448: Langflow: path traversal lets authenticated users read files

MEDIUM

Published October 7, 2026

CISO Take

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 has a path traversal flaw (CWE-22) that lets any authenticated user read files outside the intended directory, exposing sensitive data such as configuration, secrets or API keys. The CVSS score is 6.5 (medium), and it is confidentiality-only: network-reachable, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction. Exploitation risk is currently modest: EPSS is 0.0064 (around the 51st percentile), it is not in CISA KEV, and there is no public exploit or Nuclei template. Langflow often stores LLM provider keys and database credentials, so a file read can become a bigger compromise. Upgrade to the fixed release listed in the IBM advisory (https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7290694). Until then, restrict account provisioning and keep Langflow off the public internet.

Sources:NVDEPSSibm.comATLAS

What is the risk?

Medium overall. Exploitation is easy (network, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction), but it needs a valid account and the impact is limited to confidentiality. EPSS is 0.0064, with no KEV listing, no public exploit and no scanner template, so near-term mass exploitation is unlikely. Risk rises sharply for multi-user or internet-exposed Langflow instances, where the readable files can include .env files, API keys for LLM providers, database credentials and flow definitions. Those can enable lateral movement or credential abuse.

How does the attack unfold?

Initial Access

Attacker authenticates to the Langflow instance with a low-privilege account.

AML.T0012

Exploitation

Attacker sends requests with path traversal sequences to escape the restricted directory.

AML.T0049

Collection

Attacker reads sensitive files such as .env files, configs and stored credentials from the host.

AML.T0037

Impact

Stolen API keys and credentials enable abuse of LLM services and access to connected data stores.

AML.T0055

Initial Access

Attacker authenticates to the Langflow instance with a low-privilege account.

AML.T0012

Exploitation

Attacker sends requests with path traversal sequences to escape the restricted directory.

AML.T0049

Collection

Attacker reads sensitive files such as .env files, configs and stored credentials from the host.

AML.T0037

Impact

Stolen API keys and credentials enable abuse of LLM services and access to connected data stores.

AML.T0055

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

0.5%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Higher than 40% 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?

1 step

1) Upgrade Langflow OSS to the fixed version referenced in the IBM advisory (https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7290694); any release newer than 1.12.2 that includes the fix. 2) Until patched, limit Langflow accounts to trusted users, disable open self-registration, and place the instance behind a VPN or SSO-protected reverse proxy. 3) Run Langflow as a non-root user in a container with a minimal filesystem and read-only mounts, and keep secrets out of the application's readable filesystem (use a secrets manager). 4) Rotate API keys and credentials accessible to the Langflow process if exposure is suspected. 5) Detection: look in web and application logs for requests containing ../, encoded traversal sequences (%2e%2e%2f) or absolute paths in file or flow-related API parameters, especially from low-privilege accounts. 6) Inventory all Langflow instances, including shadow or dev deployments.

What does CISA's SSVC say?

DecisionTrack

Exploitationnone

AutomatableNo

Technical Impactpartial

Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.

How is it classified?

Data LeakageData ExtractionFrameworkAPIAML.T0012- Valid Accounts AML.T0037- Data from Local System AML.T0049- Exploit Public-Facing Application

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-Responses to identified AI risks and incidents

OWASP LLM Top 10

LLM02-Sensitive Information DisclosureLLM03-Supply Chain

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-93448?

Is CVE-2026-93448 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-93448 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-93448?

1) Upgrade Langflow OSS to the fixed version referenced in the IBM advisory (https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7290694); any release newer than 1.12.2 that includes the fix. 2) Until patched, limit Langflow accounts to trusted users, disable open self-registration, and place the instance behind a VPN or SSO-protected reverse proxy. 3) Run Langflow as a non-root user in a container with a minimal filesystem and read-only mounts, and keep secrets out of the application's readable filesystem (use a secrets manager). 4) Rotate API keys and credentials accessible to the Langflow process if exposure is suspected. 5) Detection: look in web and application logs for requests containing ../, encoded traversal sequences (%2e%2e%2f) or absolute paths in file or flow-related API parameters, especially from low-privilege accounts. 6) Inventory all Langflow instances, including shadow or dev deployments.

What systems are affected by CVE-2026-93448?

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

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-93448?

CVE-2026-93448 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.5 (MEDIUM). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.46%.

What is the AI security impact?

Affected AI Architectures

agent frameworksRAG pipelinesLLM workflow orchestrationlow-code AI builders

MITRE ATLAS Techniques

AML.T0012Valid Accounts

AML.T0037Data from Local System

AML.T0049Exploit Public-Facing Application

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 1.12.2 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 account on a shared or exposed Langflow server, for example through self-registration, a leaked credential or a compromised contractor account. They send crafted requests to a file-handling endpoint with traversal sequences such as ../../ to read files outside the permitted directory. They retrieve the .env file or configuration containing LLM provider API keys, database and vector store credentials. They then use these to run inference at the victim's expense, access RAG data sources or pivot into connected systems.

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.