CVE-2026-56354
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 · uneditedn8n before 1.123.24, 2.10.4, and 2.12.0 (across its 1.x and 2.x branches) contains cross-site scripting and open redirect vulnerabilities in the Form Node due to unsanitized HTML description fields and overly permissive iframe sandbox policies. Authenticated users with workflow creation permissions can inject malicious scripts or redirect parameters to perform stored XSS attacks or phishing redirects against end users.
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 confidencen8n before 1.123.24, 2.10.4, and 2.12.0 contains stored XSS and open redirect vulnerabilities in the Form Node. The issues stem from unsanitized HTML in description fields allowing script injection, and overly permissive iframe sandbox policies enabling phishing redirects. Authenticated users with workflow creation permissions can inject malicious scripts or redirect parameters that execute against end users.
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< 1.123.24>= 2.0.0, < 2.10.4>= 2.10.0, < 2.10.4>= 2.11.0, < 2.12.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
-
Identify the installed n8n versionRun 'n8n --version' from the command line, or check the version displayed in the n8n UI footer, or inspect the package.json file if self-hostedAffected if The installed version is < 1.123.24, OR between >= 2.0.0 and < 2.10.4, OR between >= 2.11.0 and < 2.12.0
-
Locate workflows using the Form NodeIn the n8n UI, search for workflows containing the Form node type, or query the workflow database for nodes of type 'n8n-nodes-base.form' or similar Form node identifiersAffected if Any active or stored workflows contain Form nodes with user-defined description fields
-
Inspect Form Node description fieldsOpen each workflow containing a Form node and examine the description field for any HTML markup, script tags, or unusual iframe attributesAffected if Description fields contain raw HTML, script tags, or iframe elements that could be exploited for XSS
-
Check iframe embedding configurationReview n8n settings or Form Node configuration for any iframe-related sandbox or allow attributes, particularly in public/form trigger workflowsAffected if Iframe sandbox is set to overly permissive values (e.g., allow-scripts allow-same-origin) or form submissions allow arbitrary redirect parameters
-
Review user permissions for workflow creationCheck the n8n user management settings to see which users or roles have workflow creation or editing permissionsAffected if Multiple authenticated users have workflow creation permissions, allowing them to inject malicious content into Form Node descriptions
Your environment is affected if n8n version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND workflows exist using the Form Node with user-editable description fields that accept HTML input.
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.
dbcve · scoped1.123.242.10.42.12.0
Upgrade n8n to version 1.123.24+, 2.10.4+, or 2.12.0+ and implement HTML sanitization on user-provided description fields along with restrictive iframe sandbox policies to prevent script execution and unauthorized redirects.
n8n 1.123.24 (for 1.x) or n8n 2.10.4/2.12.0 (for 2.x, depending on branch)
- 1. Identify the current n8n version by checking the instance or package.json
- 2. For n8n 1.x users: Upgrade to version 1.123.24 or later
- 3. For n8n 2.10.x users: Upgrade to version 2.10.4 or later
- 4. For n8n 2.11.x users: Upgrade to version 2.12.0 or later
- 5. After upgrading, verify the Form Node behavior by testing workflow creation with HTML in description fields
- 6. Ensure that only trusted users have workflow creation permissions to mitigate the attack vector
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-56354 — 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-2026-56354 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