CVE-2026-0768
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedLangflow code Code Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Langflow. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of the code parameter provided to the validate endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute Python code. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. . Was ZDI-CAN-27322.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceLangflow contains a code injection vulnerability in its validate endpoint where user-supplied input to the 'code' parameter is directly executed as Python code without sanitization or validation. Since no authentication is required and the code executes as root, an attacker can achieve unauthenticated remote code execution with full system privileges.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 1.4.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed Langflow versionRun 'pip show langflow' or 'langflow --version' to identify the installed version numberAffected if Version is exactly 1.4.2
-
Identify the validate endpointReview API routing configuration or access the OpenAPI/Swagger docs at /api/docs to locate the validate endpoint that accepts a 'code' parameterAffected if A validate endpoint accepting a 'code' parameter exists in the API routes
-
Check API authentication statusInspect the API authentication configuration - look for auth middleware, token requirements, or session settings in the Langflow configuration files or environment variablesAffected if No authentication is required to access the validate endpoint (auth is disabled or not implemented)
-
Check if API is exposed externallyReview network configuration, reverse proxy settings, and firewall rules to determine if the Langflow API is accessible from untrusted networksAffected if The API port (default 7860) is exposed to untrusted networks without IP restrictions
User is affected if Langflow version 1.4.2 is installed AND the validate endpoint accepting a 'code' parameter is accessible without authentication from their network.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation to prevent code injection, ideally by removing the ability to execute arbitrary Python code from user input. If code execution is a required feature, implement proper sandboxing and consider adding authentication to the endpoint.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-0768 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-0768 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data