CVE-2026-7755
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 · uneditedIBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 Langflow could allow remote code execution due to incomplete validation enforcement on MCP server configuration files.
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 confidenceIBM Langflow OSS versions 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 contains a remote code execution vulnerability stemming from insufficient validation enforcement on MCP (Model Context Protocol) server configuration files. Attackers can craft malicious configuration files that bypass validation checks, allowing arbitrary code execution on the affected system.
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>= 1.0.0, < 1.10.1CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed Langflow versionRun 'pip show langflow' or check the package version in your Python environment. Alternatively, check the version displayed in the Langflow UI or API endpoint.Affected if Version is 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 inclusive
-
Identify MCP server configuration filesSearch the filesystem for files with names or content related to MCP (Model Context Protocol) server configuration. Common locations include the working directory, config subdirectories, and user data directories. Look for .json, .yaml, .yml, or .config files containing 'mcp' or 'server' keywords.Affected if MCP server configuration files exist and are being loaded by Langflow
-
Inspect MCP configuration file contentsOpen and examine any identified MCP configuration files. Check for suspicious command executions, shell commands, or unexpected code that could be maliciously crafted.Affected if Configuration files contain unsanitized command execution parameters or unexpected code patterns
-
Verify MCP feature usageCheck Langflow logs and runtime behavior for evidence that MCP server configurations are being processed. Review any logs related to component loading or configuration parsing.Affected if MCP server configurations are actively processed by the Langflow instance
You are affected if your Langflow version is between 1.0.0 and 1.10.0 inclusive and MCP server configuration files are being processed by your instance.
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 data1.10.1
Upgrade to a version beyond 1.10.0 that implements proper validation enforcement on MCP server configuration files. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict access to configuration file upload/import functionality and monitor for unauthorized configuration modifications.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7755 — 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-2026-7755 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