CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-9077NVD status: Analyzed

Langflow OSS: Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision

CVE-2026-9077 is a high-severity reliance on untrusted inputs in a security decision vulnerability in Langflow OSS from IBM, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.5 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 Langflow OSS versions: 1.0.0 through 1.10.3. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.44% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update Langflow to 1.11.0 or a later version.
  2. Read the advisory on ibm.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
IBMLangflow OSS1.0.0 through 1.10.3Not stated
LangflowLangflow1.0.0 up to, but not including, 1.11.01.11.0

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.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
ChangedThe attack can reach beyond the vulnerable component into other systems.
Confidentiality
LowSome restricted data can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
NoneAvailability is not affected.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (us.ibm.com).

Official description

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.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: 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.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • 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 and the OWASP ESAPI Session Management feature. 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.
  • 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.
  • When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

More Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision vulnerabilities (CWE-807)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in Langflow OSS

All Langflow OSS vulnerabilities

Recent Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.