LangflowApplication

CVE-2026-5027

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-03-27
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 1.9.0 or later.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
The 'POST /api/v2/files' endpoint does not sanitize the 'filename' parameter from the multipart form data, allowing an attacker to write files to arbitrary locations on the filesystem using path traversal sequences ('../').

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 confidence

The POST /api/v2/files endpoint accepts multipart form data containing a 'filename' parameter that is used directly in constructing the file write path without sanitization. An attacker can embed path traversal sequences ('../') in the filename to write files outside the intended upload directory to arbitrary filesystem locations.

MitigationImplement strict input validation on the filename parameter to reject or strip path traversal sequences ('../'), and use randomized internal filenames with a controlled upload directory to prevent arbitrary file writes.

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
LangflowApplication
Affected:< 1.9.0

CVSS 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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the running service version
    Query the service's version endpoint, check process.argv, or inspect the deployed binary/package manifest to determine the exact version installed
    Affected if The installed version falls within any affected version range for CVE-2026-5027
  2. Confirm the /api/v2/files endpoint is exposed
    Send a GET or OPTIONS request to POST /api/v2/files to verify the endpoint exists and is accessible
    Affected if The endpoint is reachable and accepts multipart form uploads
  3. Inspect the upload directory configuration
    Examine configuration files (e.g., config.json, settings.yaml, environment variables) for upload_path, upload_dir, or similar upload directory settings
    Affected if No explicit upload directory restriction is configured or the path is not sanitized elsewhere
  4. Check for filename validation in application logs
    Review application logs for any path traversal sequences in upload attempts or for validation failures related to the filename parameter
    Affected if No filtering or rejection of '../' sequences is logged or enforced on the filename parameter
  5. Test if path traversal sequences are rejected
    Send a test multipart upload request with a filename containing '../' sequences and observe the response behavior
    Affected if The application accepts the path traversal sequences without rejecting or sanitizing them

You are affected if the service runs a version within the affected range, the /api/v2/files endpoint is exposed, and the filename parameter accepts path traversal sequences without validation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to 1.9.0 or later
Fixed in 1.9.0
Interim mitigation

Implement strict input validation on the filename parameter to reject or strip path traversal sequences ('../'), and use randomized internal filenames with a controlled upload directory to prevent arbitrary file writes.

Fix this in Langflow Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,120
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,992.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5027 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-5027 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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