flow-like: Incorrect Authorization
CVE-2026-50173 is a high-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in flow-like from Rheosoph, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 7.2 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected flow-like versions: < 1.0.4. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.68% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 53% of scored CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of flow-like you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- LowLimited loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- LowLimited loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
Flow-Like is a platform for building end-to-end use cases. Prior to version 1.0.4, `GET /api/v1/apps/{app_id}/invoke/presign` grants Azure Blob Storage SAS credentials with write and delete access to app content to any app member that has `ExecuteEvents`, even when that member lacks `ReadFiles` and `WriteFiles`. The route treats file permissions as optional after the `ExecuteEvents` gate. When the caller has neither file permission, it selects `CredentialsAccess::InvokeNone`. In the Azure credential provider, `InvokeNone` still mints a `content_sas_token` for `apps/{app_id}` with `sp=rwdl`, plus user-content and log SAS tokens. The returned shared credential is enough for the low-privilege caller to directly write or delete blobs under the app content prefix. Version 1.0.4 patches the issue. Flow-Like Studio and the hosted Flow-Like Web App are not affected. These deployments use AWS-backed storage. Self-hosted deployments are only affected if they use Azure Blob Storage as the storage backend. In affected deployments, the issue only applies to authenticated app members who have workflow execution permissions but should not have app file write/delete permissions. Users of affected self-hosted Azure deployments should update to version 1.0.4 or the latest dev branch.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Recent Incorrect Authorization vulnerabilities
- 8.3 High severity
- 9.9 Critical severity
- 7.9 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.