Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
An authenticated Langflow user can turn normal flow-building access into control of the underlying server. Successful exploitation could expose data, alter applications, disrupt service, or enable broader compromise using the Langflow server’s operating-system permissions. The documented custom-component restriction does not prevent this attack.
Executive priority
Treat as an immediate remediation priority for any affected deployment with multiple users, external access, sensitive integrations, or privileged service credentials. Restrict access while teams follow IBM’s patch guidance. Investigate suspicious flow-build and host-process activity because successful compromise reaches beyond the application.
Technical view
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 insufficiently validates a crafted type field saved within a flow. Building a wrapper flow that references it can execute arbitrary operating-system commands as the server process. This is classified as CWE-95 and bypasses LANGFLOW_ALLOW_CUSTOM_COMPONENTS=false.
Likely exposure
Exposure exists where affected Langflow versions are deployed and authenticated users can save flows and trigger referenced wrapper-flow builds. Internet accessibility increases opportunity but is not required. Impact is bounded initially by the Langflow server process identity, which may still provide significant host or connected-resource access.
Exploitation context
The supplied record is not listed in CISA KEV, and the source bundle provides no evidence of active exploitation. Exploitation requires authenticated flow access, but has low stated complexity, needs no user interaction, and can cross from application permissions to operating-system command execution.
Researcher notes
The security boundary failure occurs during persisted flow interpretation and wrapper-flow building, not merely through explicitly enabled custom components. The CVSS 3.1 score is 9.9 with network reachability, low complexity, low privileges, no interaction, changed scope, and high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts.
Mitigation direction
- Inventory Langflow OSS deployments and identify versions 1.0.0 through 1.11.1.
- Review IBM’s advisory and apply its documented patch or upgrade guidance.
- Restrict affected deployments to trusted administrators until vendor-directed remediation is complete.
- Do not rely on LANGFLOW_ALLOW_CUSTOM_COMPONENTS=false as the sole safeguard.
- Limit the Langflow process identity and its access to sensitive systems and credentials.
Validation and detection
- Confirm deployed Langflow versions using approved asset and package records.
- Identify accounts permitted to save flows and trigger wrapper-flow builds.
- Review flow changes and build activity for unexpected crafted type values or unfamiliar wrapper references.
- Review host telemetry for unusual child processes or commands originating from Langflow.
- After remediation, verify the installed version matches IBM’s guidance and retest the policy boundary safely.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-95: Code execution behavior lookup
Code execution and unsafe deserialization weaknesses often justify reviewing execution behavior and process telemetry. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupExecution behavior lookup
The CVE wording references code or command execution, so execution technique review may help defensive triage. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupPrivilege behavior lookup
The CVE wording references privilege impact, so privilege escalation and authorization behavior review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2026-19295 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Critical
- CVSS
- 9.9 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H3.16ibmVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
9.9CriticalVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7284733CVE reference, ibm · vendor-advisory, patch
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')
Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.