CVE
CVE-2026-33309
- First Reported
- Aug 20, 2026
- Latest Reported
- Aug 20, 2026
CVE Enrichment
- CVSS
- 9.9 CRITICAL
- EPSS
- 1.05%
- EPSS Percentile
- 63.26%
- CISA KEV
- Not listed
Description
Langflow is a tool for building and deploying AI-powered agents and workflows. Versions 1.2.0 through 1.8.1 have a bypass of the patch for CVE-2025-68478 (External Control of File Name), leading to the root architectural issue within `LocalStorageService` remaining unresolved. Because the underlying storage layer lacks boundary containment checks, the system relies entirely on the HTTP-layer `ValidatedFileName` dependency. This defense-in-depth failure leaves the `POST /api/v2/files/` endpoint vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. The multipart upload filename bypasses the path-parameter guard, allowing authenticated attackers to write files anywhere on the host system, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE). Version 1.9.0 contains an updated fix.
Technical Details
- CVSS Version
- 3.1
- CNA / NVD Source
- security-advisories@github.com
- Published
- 24-Mar-2026 20:16
- Last Modified
- 17-Jun-2026 17:37
- EPSS Date
- 2026-10-11
- CWE
- CWE-22, CWE-73, CWE-94, CWE-284
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1 AV:N /
AC:L /
PR:L /
UI:N /
S:C /
C:H /
I:H /
A:H
Affected Products / Versions
- langflow / langflow
Version / affected range: * · from (inclusive) 1.2.0 · before (exclusive) 1.9.0
cpe:2.3:a:langflow:langflow:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
References
Sources: NVD · FIRST EPSS · CISA KEV
Latest successful provider update; providers refresh independently.
Reported Context (1)
- Langflow versions up to 1.8.1 also carry CVE-2026-33309, a separate path traversal and arbitrary file write vulnerability in POST /api/v2/files/, which is fixed in the 1.9.0 release. Wazuh Shows How to Detect Exploitation of Langflow CVE-2026-33017
CVE (2)
MITRE ATT&CK (3)
Vendors (1)
Products (4)
Tools (1)
Note: Related entities, including threat actors, malware, CVEs, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, vendors, products, tools, countries, and industries, are shown when they appear in the same reporting. Their presence does not necessarily mean they were targeted, compromised, vulnerable, responsible for the activity, or directly involved in the incident.